2013> - London Funders€¦ · funding for many grassroots sport organisations in London.” Local...

2013>Seizing the opportunity of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Feasibility study into establishing a lasting, independent, endowed fund to support community sport after the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Paul BowerOctober 2012www.londonfunders.org.uk

a legacy that lasts

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Feasibility study, Legacy 2013> Fund, September 2012 www.londonfunders.org.uk 2

“London 2012 will inspire young people to choose sport wherever they live, whatever they do, whatever they believe.” Sebastian Coe, Final presentation to the International Olympic Committee, Singapore, July 2005

“2013 could prove to be a cliff edge in terms of local authority funding for many grassroots sport organisations in London.” Local Authority Officer, East London, January 2012

“The Greater London Authority welcomes the work London Funders has undertaken to examine the feasibility of setting up an independent endowed fund to support grassroots sport and active living following the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Such a fund could be an important funding stream for grassroots sport following the Games.” Greater London Authority Sports Unit, February 2012

“We believe that the LA84 Foundation shows what can be achieved when the private and voluntary sector work together. We are delighted to be working closely with partners to try and bring about a similar legacy from London 2012. It was young Londoners what won it in Singapore. So far, they’re on track to be let down. This is our answer.” Rosie Ferguson, CEO, London Youth, March 2012

London Funders would like to thank the following organisations for funding and supporting the work of the Legacy 2013> Fund feasibility study:

Further support was provided by:

Legal Disclaimer

This feasibility study and the partners which have funded this work are not associated with, nor claim association with, London 2012, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games(LOCOG) or the Olympic Movement.

21st Century Legacy – Be the Best you can Be!Capital FM’s Help a Capital ChildCity Bridge TrustCricket for ChangeEast London Community FoundationGreater London Authority – Sports UnitGreenhouse-Sport and performing artsLaureus Sport for Good FoundationLondon Federation of Sport and RecreationLee Valley Regional Park AuthorityVolunteering England

London Funders is also grateful to the following organisations which have been involvedin supporting this feasibility study and plans to establish a lasting, independent,endowed fund to support community sport as a legacy of the London 2012 Olympicand Paralympic Games:

HUNTERSSolicitors


Contents

Foreword by Patrick Escobar, LA84 Foundation 5 Introduction 6 Executive Summary 7-9 1.0 THE CHALLENGE 10-12 2.0 A LEGACY 2013. FUND 13-15 Feasibility study brief – Content and structure – Methodology - Founding principles 3.0 A SPORTING LEGACY – the promise 16-20 The promise to the world - Keeping the promise – Government community sport legacy initiatives – Factors inhibiting community sport participation – Impact of new London 2012 venues - Previous Olympic Games and the SPEAR Report - Evaluation of the legacy promise 2012-13 4.0 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK 21-25 Community sport organisations - GLA and London Assembly – Sport England – LOCOG British Olympic Association - London Local Authorities 5.0 BEST PRACTICE AND GAP ANALYSIS 26-30 London Youth Getting Ready for the Games - Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund – Continuity of funding after 2012 - Gap Analysis 6.0 SCOPE, REMIT, CRIETERIA AND EVALUATION 31-36 Funding ethos – Geographic scope – Age range – Sport participation and sport for development - Social stigma and poverty indicators – Additionality – Evaluation, measurement and quality standards - Podium working with the academic community - London Youth perspectives on impact assessment 7.0 INCOME GENERATION 37-42 A challenge fund model- Donor involvement-Bona fides and reputation-LA84 Foundation, lessons for the UK? - Corporate sponsorship- Corporate social responsibility-Sponsorship, insights from a global brand-Media partnerships and public appeals-Philanthropy and high net worth individuals 8.0 BRAND STRATEGY, VSION AND MASSION 43-45 Branding the fund - Respecting the London 2012 and Olympic brands,-Vision, Mission, Aims and objectives – Customers and beneficiaries 9.0 FUND GOVERNANCE 46 – 48 Interim arrangements 2012/13 – Establishing a more permanent structure- Deed of trust, in perpetuity or lasting? Responsibilities of the board of trustees-Appointing fund managers 10.0 CONCLUSION 49 Appendices 50-52 Appendix 1. The economic impact of investing in community sport 50-51 Appendix 2. Mayor’s sport legacy fund – initial findings 52 Figures and tables Fig. 1 Legacy 2013> Fund SWOT Analysis 30 Fig. 2 Draft non-statutory income generation and sponsorship model 42

Fig. 3 Draft funding and governance model 48


Foreword

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games made a promise to the world that a legacy would be left behind for the youth of the United Kingdom and I commend London Funders and their partners for your work in making sure that promise is kept. The work of the LA84 Foundation, the legacy of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games, is a great example of how a community can benefit from such a legacy. Beginning with an endowment from the Games of $93 million, in the last 28 years we have spent back into the community more than $200 million. We have served more than 2.5 million youngsters and provided grants to more than 1,100 organizations providing sports opportunities for youngsters. In addition, we have created our own programs including a coaching education program and have furthered the understanding of the power of sport to enrich lives through research and the premier sports library in North America. London has the potential to exceed our work. You have transformed a section of the city. But, more is needed than bricks and mortar to create a healthy community. An equal investment needs to be made in the youth of the city. The dividends this will pay will multiply over the generations to come. I wish you success.

Patrick Escobar, Vice President, Grants and Programs, LA84 Foundation


Introduction The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games made the promise to “Inspire a Generation”. At the same time, community sport organisations are reporting increased financial pressures which threaten their ability to maintain their present level of provision and sometimes even their survival. This is despite excellent work on a community sport legacy by Government and partner agencies such as Sport England. Two issues are critical:

1. Government funding for such initiatives is only guaranteed until 2017. London 2012’s promise to the world was that we would leave a lasting sporting legacy not a legacy for the five years following the Games.

2. For organisations that do not qualify for the new funding, particularly community groups using sport across a wide age range as a tool for community development, the outlook remains insecure.

There is a fear that good work will be lost and projects and organisations may close due to lack of funding in a challenging economic climate. Rather than seeing sports participation increasing due to the inspirational power of the Games, there is a danger that communities across the UK will become less, not more, active after 2012. In response to these challenges, City Bridge Trust, Comic Relief, Community Development Foundation and Trust for London have supported London Funders to explore the feasibility of raising new money to support community sport as a contribution to the legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. These organisations came together informally in autumn 2011 as the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership. They have played a key role by financing this study and also by galvanising other organisations to investigate whether London 2012 could leave the kind of sustainable community sport funding legacy which was created by the LA84 Foundation following the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. They were joined by other organisations with expertise and experience in facilitating transformational change in communities through sport to form the Legacy 2013> Project Management Board, which has overseen the production of this study. The membership of this body includes the following organisations: CCLA Investment Management, City Bridge Trust, Comic Relief, Capital FM’s Help a Capital Child, Community Development Foundation, Football Foundation, Laureus Sport for Good Foundation, Leyton Orient Community Sport, London Community Foundation, London Funders, London Youth, Media Trust, SkillsActive, sported, StreetGames and Trust for London. Additional support and expertise were provided by: Association of Charitable Foundations, London Federation of Sport and Recreation, the London Borough of Newham and the Sports Unit of the Greater London Authority. The author would also like to thank the following organisations for their advice and insights which have helped to develop this study: Big Lottery Fund, British Olympic Foundation, Demos, The Gallup Organisation, Legacy Trust UK, Sport England and Substance. This study addresses the need for more resources for community sport by examining the feasibility of establishing a lasting, independent, endowed foundation after the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Such a fund could support the work of organisations that are creating positive change and supporting disadvantaged communities through sport and who wish to continue their work decades after the Olympic flame has been passed on to other cities across the globe. An independent, endowed fund could not provide a total solution to the complex issues surrounding funding a community sports legacy after London 2012. This has never been our intention. The last six months of research and consultation have demonstrated however, that there is genuine enthusiasm for the concept and a belief that it could make a lasting and positive contribution. The principal caveats are that such a fund is only worth establishing if it raises new money, helps fill a gap and contributes to the existing funding landscape. For the purposes of this study this concept is referred to under the temporary working title of the Legacy 2013> Fund. If your organisation wishes to comment on this study, assist in its development or to be listed as a supporter of the Legacy 2013> Fund , please contact Paul Bower, Senior Project Manager, London Funders, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H 0AE [email protected] We look forward to hearing from you.


Executive summary The feasibility study has identified the following concerns:

o a shortage of funds for community sport organisations exacerbated by the current economic situation which is unlikely to improve soon

o complexity of the funding landscape for community sport and active living with a plethora of programmes and individually-branded funding streams

o a lack of continuity and the short-term nature of most funding allocated to promote community sport, particularly where it is used as a tool for community development

o a lack of funding to support successful projects which are now coming to the end of funding provided under the legacy banner

o projects may struggle to find alternative sources of income or commercial sponsorship in a crowded and competitive market

Many respondents to the consultation and the Legacy 2013> Fund survey indicated that a lasting independent, endowed fund could help address some of these concerns. They believe that such a fund could help deliver transformational change after the Games by investing long-term in community sports organisations, enabling them to be sustainable and effective. This especially applies in areas where civil society infrastructure is fragile. A Legacy 2013> Fund could:

o access new money for community sport and aim to match any investment made by Government and/or Lottery distributors

o provide an alternative source of revenue, especially core funding for organisations contributing to positive change in their communities through community sport

o leave a lasting community sport and social legacy from the Games The concept of a Legacy 2013> Fund is shaped by three overarching objectives:

o use the catalyst of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games to create a new permanent funding stream to support community sport

o increase and help simplify funding for community sport o help transform communities by improving social and physical well-being as a legacy of the

London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Initial findings of the feasibility study are outlined below. Context and demand

• The Games were secured on the promise of leaving a lasting legacy for future generations • The Games are being held under the strapline “Inspire a Generation” • The Opening ceremonies pointed the way to a handover to the next generation of sportsmen

and sportswomen • There is enthusiasm for a lasting, independent, endowed fund to support community sport

from a wide range of stakeholders • Many voluntary organisations are concerned about the current complex, confusing and

constantly changing landscape for the funding of community sport • Many community sport organisations are concerned about the immediate future after 2012

due to the current economic climate • There is desire to try to harvest the Olympic windfall of increased revenues raised during

Games-time to reinvest in community sport as has been undertaken by the London Borough of Newham


Income generation and governance • London Funders is working with some of its members and the Legacy 2013> Fund Project

Management Board to develop a business model based on building an endowed fund from all possible sources that offers major donors the opportunity of real direction in what their money can achieve

• Figure 2 at page 42 outlines a top-line income generation and sponsorship strategy • Figure 3 at page 48 outlines the range of possible sources of funding and a draft

grantmaking and governance structure. • A key financial aspiration would be to grow by 100% any funding that the Legacy 2013>

Fund could attract from Government and/or Lottery to form the start-up capital of an independent endowed fund

• The partners involved in this study would welcome the challenge of raising matching funds to expand any such contribution from Government and Lottery distributors

• There is a strong wish by all parties to keep the running costs of a Legacy 2013> Fund as low as possible

• One possible structure would be to set up an independent charitable foundation which then contracts with an experienced grantmaker to run the Fund (in the same way as the Wembley National Stadium Trust has done with City Bridge Trust)

• The first stage to securing investment from the corporate sector is the creation of a strong concept brand with a clear identity, vision and mission.

Impact of past Olympics

• Evidence from previous Olympic Games demonstrates that their inspirational power alone cannot be relied on to drive up participation or improve community development through sport

• Counter-intuitively, there is evidence that some previous host cities have seen a reduction in local sports participation in the medium term.

Scope and remit

• A Legacy 2013> Fund should concentrate on those activities, sectors and groups not already supported by existing funding streams, particularly those managed by Sport England

• As the Fund grows, every effort must be made to establish good liaison and collaborative arrangements with other major funders

• A Legacy 2013> Fund should be a stable, long-term proposition in order to enable it to take a strategic view and respond to and complement the work of other funders

• A Legacy 2013> Fund might invest in youth and community organisations rather than school sport which is more properly the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Sport England

• A Legacy 2013> Fund should support all age groups but might be well advised to start with a youth focus

• There is a clear rationale and desire to establish a Legacy 2013> Fund that benefits the whole of the UK but at present the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership is strongest in London

Criteria for grantmaking • A Legacy 2013>Fund should not be a direct grantmaker to community sport organisations

(as is the case with the LA84 Foundation) but rather operate by funding existing experienced grantmakers to do so.

• The current funding environment suggests that a Legacy 2013> Fund should focus on generating resources for longer term (at least three to five years) revenue funding for projects using community sport as a tool for community development across a wide age range

• Such an approach would not rule out funding projects which set increased sports participation as their prime objective. Respondents to the survey have provided examples of how sports participation in its own right can have consequential benefits in the fields of crime reduction, public health and social cohesion


• Youth organisations in particular would welcome continuity of funding criteria which are not limited by the political cycle

• Structure and objectives should be reviewed on a three to five year basis to ensure that the Legacy 2013> Fund could remain relevant and add real value

• A Legacy 2013> Fund could identify underfunded areas in which to initiate investment and solicit specific organisations to roll out funding that meets its objectives

• The Olympic values of Respect, Excellence, Friendship and the Paralympic values of Courage, Determination, Inspiration and Equality could form the starting point for any discussions concerning a funding ethos and values

• The legacy of the Paralympic Games and their impact on attitudes to disability sport should form part of the development of grantmaking criteria.

• Fine-grained funding criteria should be left to established grantmakers with a track record of success in their field

Monitoring and evaluation

• Community sport organisations would welcome more continuity and consistency in monitoring, evaluation, impact assessment and quality standards

• Monitoring and evaluation need to be funded properly and a proportion of each grant should be ring-fenced for that purpose


1.0 THE CHALLENGE Why we need to be concerned about the community sport legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and what we could be aiming for. London won the right to host the XXX Olympiad on the promise of engaging more young people in community sport. The legacy promise, central to the entire London 2012 project, was always meant to cover social as well as physical regeneration and be about people as much as iconic venues. Support for the Games has been high. The venues and transport links were built on time and to budget. Approximately £400 million of the contingency fund for the construction of the Olympic Park and other facilities remained unspent at 1 August 2012. Minority sports traditionally poorly attended at previous Olympic Games sold out. Despite the economic downturn a majority of UK citizens and Londoners in particular believed that the Games would be a success. In a BBC poll for Radio 5 Live 55% agreed with the statement “Despite its cost London 2012 will prove to be good value in terms of its benefits to the UK”1 There is far less optimism about the promise of a lasting community sports legacy and delivering benefits for UK citizens. The BBC poll suggested that the further you live from the Olympic Stadium, the less you think that the Games will benefit your local area.2 In a YouGov poll conducted during the Olympic Games 53% agreed with the proposition that , with all things considered, London should have bid to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, compared to 48% who felt that way in March 2012. 47% of the sample did not believe that the Olympic Games would encourage a healthier, more physically active nation. Further doubts about the community sport legacy have been raised by respected figures such as British Olympic Association Chairman, Lord Moynihan, and exercise medicine expert Dr Andrew Franklyn-Miller. They have expressed the fear that the UK risks falling short of the promise of leaving a legacy of increased participation in community sport. Former Minister of Sport Richard Caborn went as far as to claim that the Olympic community sports legacy was “in danger of failing completely”3. Rather than participation in sport and physical activity increasing due to the catalytic effect of the Games, many believe there is a danger that the UK population will become less, not more, active from 2013 onwards. At a time when obesity and mental health are issues of increased concern, with a knock on impact for the costs of the NHS, it is particularly important to harness the power of sport as a way of supporting communities to address these issues. Many organisations use sport in this way. Those using sport as a tool for community development are particularly concerned about the future because their activities often fall outside funding criteria. The fiercest criticism of the community sport legacy came from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 – the London 2012 Games’ own assurance body. The Commission has been complimentary of other aspects of the legacy promise such as environmental sustainability but have openly expressed doubts as to whether the Games will leave any lasting community sport legacy4. Despite widespread support for a well-organised Games in which Team GB did exceptionally well, doubts were expressed about the community sport legacy even before the Olympic cauldron was extinguished.

1 BBC/Comres Poll18 April 2012. 2 Ibid. See http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/502/itv-‐news-‐2012-‐london-‐olympics-‐poll.htm 3 Guardian newspaper 21.09.11. 4 See Assuring a legacy – promises, progress and potential -‐ thematic review March 2012 www.cslondon.org/publications


Lord Coe and his team will go their separate ways on 31 March 2013, leaving a variety of agencies to deliver against the Olympic Board’s broader commitment5 to utilise the Games to “Increase in London participation in community and grassroots level in all sport and across all groups.” 6

Olympic and Paralympic Objectives 4.5 - Olympic Board, April 2006.

Funding gaps remain despite the excellent work on community sport legacy particularly the transition from school sport to adult life 7 supported by agencies such as DCMS, the Greater London Authority, the National Governing Bodies and Sport England. Welcome as these Government initiatives often are, they cannot support the entire community sport sector’s desire to leave a truly lasting legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Resources are increasingly scarce and voluntary organisations working in the field of community sport are concerned that funding streams are time-limited, insecure and so tightly focussed on increasing young people’s participation in sport in a school setting that many effective projects may miss out. Research undertaken as part of this study indicates that many organisations are worried about their future beyond March 2013 when much of the present revenue funding will end. Securing core funding to continue successful work is cited as a particularly pressing issue. Where financial support is available it is often project funding tied to time-limited Government initiatives. One organisation with over 20 years’ experience supporting community sport in East London complained of the problem of “initiative-it is”. Criteria and targets can change with every new ministerial initiative. Community sport organisations are constantly trying to respond to agendas and priorities driven by external considerations in order to secure funding to ensure their survival. Securing a community sport legacy from previous Olympic Games has proved elusive. The UK Government and Sport England face a difficult task. The UK is at least making attempts to address the issue. Arguably only one previous Olympic host city has risen to the challenge of leaving a permanent community sports legacy. Following the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games, key decision-makers led by Peter V. Ueberroth, the President of the LA84 organising committee, set up the LA84 Foundation using $93 million of generated surpluses.8 To date, it has delivered the following results:

o $200 million distributed to support community sport in Los Angeles from the investment of some of the operating profits of the LA Games

o over 2.5 million young people benefited o 50,000 community coaches trained o 1,100 local sports organisations supported

Income is still being raised by the LA84 Foundation, now led by IOC member and Olympic medallist

5 The Olympic Board provides oversight, strategic coordination and monitoring of the entire 2012 Games project, ensuring the delivery of the commitments made to the IOC when the Games were awarded to London, and a sustainable legacy from the staging of the Games. The Olympic Board is made up of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Mayor of London Boris Johnson, British Olympic Association Chairman Colin Moynihan and London 2012 Organising Committee Chair Seb Coe.

6 The broader legacy promise made by Lord Coe specifically concentrates on young people whereas Olympic Board Programme Objective 4.5 includes the phrase all groups suggesting that older people should also be included in any targets. 7 See Section 3.4 of this study for an analysis of the DCMS /Sport England initiative. Creating a sporting habit for life – a new youth sports strategy. 8 See www.la84foundation.org


Anita DeFrantz9, at an average rate of $8 million per annum. A fund which was originally scheduled to close in 2004 is now self-sustaining and helping to provide community sport opportunities to Angelinos who were not even born in 1984. Early beneficiaries of the foundation’s work are, as adults, now coaching young people 28 years after their Games closed. The LA84 Foundation offers an excellent example of best practice for using the Games as a catalyst to increase the funding available for community sport. Despite the inherent complexities of a London and the challenging economic situation, the private, public, voluntary and charitable sectors could join forces with individual philanthropists to bring similar, lasting benefits across the UK. This feasibility study offers options on how this goal might be achieved. The intention is to harness existing expertise, resources and goodwill to increase the resources available to organisations changing lives and making positive change to their communities through community sport – a lasting, independent, endowed foundation which like the LA84 Foundation would survive for decades after the Games have moved to other cities. Although a Legacy 2013> Fund will not provide a comprehensive solution to all issues related to a community sport legacy from the Games, all parties involved in this study are convinced that such a fund will meet a need not filled by existing funders, and can make an essential contribution. The opportunity should be seized now before momentum from the Games is lost. Great work is being done on sports legacy by Government, local authorities, Sport England and the voluntary sector across the UK. The challenge will be to ensure that this work continues and grows so that London 2012 leaves a Legacy that lasts. The Legacy 2013> Fund is our response to that challenge.

9 Anita DeFrantz won bronze in the women’s eights in Montreal 1976, was Vice-‐President of the organising committee of the 1984 Los Angles Olympic Games and in 1992 was elected chair of the IOC Committee on Women’s Sports.


2.0 A LEGACY 2013> FUND Why this study was established, its remit and methodology and which organisations are involved. Members making up the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership – City Bridge Trust, Comic Relief, Community Development Foundation and Trust for London, manage over £200 million annually of grants expenditure and have between them centuries of experience of grantmaking and monitoring projects that have changed the lives hundreds of thousands of people. These organisations funded the initial scoping work and set the brief for the feasibility study. Additional support has been provided by CLLA Investment Management, Hunters Solicitors, Leyton Orient Community Sport, London Community Foundation, London Youth, Media Trust and Substance. The Sports Unit of the Greater London Authority has also been a key support and adviser. 2.1 Feasibility study brief The overarching brief for this study is to:

• investigate whether a Legacy 2013> Fund to support community sport following the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games is desirable and feasible

• suggest a model for how a Legacy 2013> Fund might be established and governed first in Greater London and with an assessment as to how an England or UK-wide model might be created

• consider how a Legacy 2013> Fund might make an impact and provide value for money.

2.2 Content and structure The following themes were agreed as the content of this study:

• examine the context of the community sport legacy promise, check against delivery of that promise and consider the evidence from previous Olympic Games. See Section 3

• examine whether demand exists for a Legacy 2013> Fund on the basis of feedback and survey responses from the voluntary and statutory sectors. See Section 4

• conduct a gap analysis to examine where gaps exist or will exist in funding arrangements for community sport and investigate examples of best practice in Greater London. See Section 5

• Investigate options for the ethos, grantmaking criteria, evaluation/measurement strategy and the socio-economic and demographic remit of the fund based on the three geographic options10 of Greater London, England and the UK. See Section 6

• examine how the capital for a Legacy 2013> Fund might be raised via a variety of income generation strategies including sponsorship and, philanthropy See Section 7

• review the brand strategy, vision and mission of the Fund. See Section 8 • conduct a preliminary assessment of a management and governance structure for the

Legacy 2013> Fund with reference to examples of best practice. See Section 9 • Conclusion and recommendations for further work. See Section 10.

2.3 Methodology In the summer of 2011 London Funders convened a series of workshops and briefings to consider the issue of how funders and service providers might come together to support community sport as a legacy of the London 2012 Games. Participants in these discussions, and their stakeholders, identified concerns about a shortage of funds, particularly for core costs, the difficult economic climate and the complex and short-term nature of many sport funding streams. These initial findings formed the context for the feasibility study brief and subsequent discussions.

10 Member organisations of the Legacy 2013> Fund Project Partnership understand that a community sport legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games must be seen in a UK-‐wide context. However, for operational reasons Greater London is likely to be the initial starting point. This does not in any preclude plans for a UK-‐wide project.


From December 2011 to April 2012 London Funders carried out a survey, completed by 49 organisations, which was designed to:

• establish whether there was a need for further independent funding for community sport • identify where gaps in funding exist • investigate how a fund might be organised and money raised • collect views on the geographic and demographic scope of any fund.

The remainder of the research for this feasibility study was conducted by:

• interviews with key agencies including: the partners in the project, Greater London Authority Sports Unit, Sport England, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Big Lottery Fund, Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, Office for Civil Society (Cabinet Office), British Olympic Association, London Community Sports Board, Leyton Orient Community Sport, London Federation of Sport and Recreation and the London Borough of Newham

• reference to Sport England’s Active People Survey • reference to the Centre for Sport, Physical Education & Activity Research (SPEAR),

Canterbury Christ Church University report on the impact of major sporting events across the globe on community sports participation

• interviews with London-based organisations funding and delivering community sport • discussions with the management team at the LA84 Foundation • reference to Creating a sporting habit for life – a new youth sport strategy, DCMS-Sport

England January 2012,and the DCMS Legacy Strategy • discussions with DCMS economists and reference to the Grant Thornton/DCMS meta-

evaluation, March 2012 2.4 Founding principles Initial consultation suggested that the feasibility study and any proposed future structures should be based on the following working assumptions and principles:

What Why Any fund should welcome the input of national, regional and local government but must be independent in its decision-making.

Most respondents to the survey or organisations interviewed are looking for consistency in grantmaking over a longer period of time, free of frequently changing policies dictated by the political cycle or ministerial priorities.

Any fund should aim to establish a permanent/long-term11 funding stream with a minimum 20 year planning horizon.

There is a desire to deliver a lasting legacy along the lines of the LA84 Foundation. A short-term project could not justify the amount of commitment needed to establish a permanent endowed fund and would not address the desire to provide a legacy which would last well beyond present planning horizons.

A Legacy 2013> Fund should initially concentrate on work after the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games that increases the number of people involved in community sport as a tool for community development.

Sports participation falls within the remit of Sport England, mainly delivered through its work with the National Governing Bodies. A Legacy 2013> Fund should not conflict with or duplicate existing work. Funders have also shown an interest in supporting projects which focus on sport where it can facilitate transformational change in communities. This is an area where many funders including Sport England feel there is the largest gap.

11 Most stakeholders expressed the desire to create a lasting fund which supports community sport in the long term along the lines of other endowed foundations which have been in existence in London for decades. For legal reason Lottery distributors would not be allowed to invest in a fund which was legally a permanent institution. This conflict and a suggested resolution are dealt with in Section 9 of this study.


What Why Any fund should not initially be a direct grantmaker to community sport organisations but rather operate by funding existing experienced grant-makers to do so. In this respect the Legacy 2013> Fund would differ from the model of the LA84 Foundation which is a direct grantmaker.

Initial consultations with organisations involved in delivering community sport indicated strongly that the number and complexity of funding streams was a major issue. Organisations consulted suggested that more resources to support existing work were needed rather than the creation of another branded grantmaking initiative.

A Legacy 2013> Fund should be an endowed fund set up for the long-term and structured so that major donors could choose to invest in a particular geographic area or type of activity within the objects of the fund and have their contribution recognised should they wish. It should therefore be a pooled fund containing restricted and unrestricted pots of funding.

In order to tap into new philanthropy and the growing desire for more donor involvement, a Legacy 2013> Fund would need to offer some level of donor direction.

Governance and organisational structures of a Legacy 2013> Fund must lend themselves to keeping administration and operating costs to a minimum set at or below industry best practice standards. A new free-standing organisation with high fixed costs and overheads should not be created.

All stakeholders warn of the risks of duplicating existing structures. A Legacy 2013> Fund would only be successful if it could demonstrate that it was cost effective and not incur high fixed costs through premises and management salaries.

London Funders, not being itself a grantmaker, would not expect to be the vehicle to manage a Legacy 2013 Fund.

London Funders is a membership organisation and does not seek to benefit from the establishment of a Legacy 2013> Fund


3.0 A SPORTING LEGACY – the promise The promise of leaving a lasting community sport legacy was at the heart of the London 2012 bid. Is the UK delivering on that promise? How is delivery against targets being measured? What are the lessons to be learned from other Olympic Games? On 6 July 2005 Lord Coe made the following promise to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as part of London’s bid to host the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games:

“London 2012 will inspire young people to choose sport wherever they live, whatever they do, whatever they believe.”

The promise of leaving a lasting social as well as infrastructure legacy from the Games was central to the success of London’s bid to host the Games and one of the reasons why it enjoyed such a high level of public support, particularly amongst Londoners.12 3.1 The promise to the world In 2006 Lord Coe expanded on the bid promise when he said:

“Winning the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games represents the single biggest opportunity in our lifetime to transform sport and participation in sport in the UK forever. We have a unique opportunity that we must not squander to increase participation in sport, at community and grassroots levels as well as elite levels."

In the same year the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair made the wider case for the role that the Games could play in encouraging sport as a tool for community development when he attributed the success of the London bid to the fact that it:

“…made a statement about sport and its importance in the development of young people for the future, in their health, in their fitness, in terms of their responsibilities as citizens".

The promise to use the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games as a catalyst to increase participation in community sport in the UK was then formalised and expanded in the Olympic and Paralympic Programme Objectives agreed by the Olympic Board in April 2006. Sub-objective 4.5 is to:

“Increase [in London] participation in community and grassroots level in all sport and across all groups”.

These objectives still form part of the operational framework of the entire Olympic and legacy project across Government at a national and regional level. These programme objectives should form part of the basis against which success of the London 2012 project is finally judged. As the sponsoring department of the Games, the DCMS is responsible for the legacy promise. The DCMS Legacy Plan concentrates on four areas, the first of which is:

“Harnessing the United Kingdom’s passion for sport to increase grassroots participation, particularly by young people – and to encourage the whole population to be more physically active”.

It should be noted that the DCMS Legacy Plan concentrates almost entirely on young people during the time they are at school. Young people spend 85% of their time outside school and Government spends 55 times more per young person on schooling than it does on the youth service.13 Despite the lead role of the DCMS on legacy policy, the Greater London Authority, London Legacy Development Corporation (formerly the Olympic Park Legacy Company), the Mayoral Development

12 The IOC conducts independent research to measure levels of popular support in candidate cities. The level of local support is a factor taken into account when awarding the right to host the Games. The level of popular support in London was rated higher than the other four cities; Paris, Madrid, New York and Moscow; competing in the final bidding round. 13 The Hunch, London Youth November 2011.


Corporation14, Treasury, Cabinet Office, Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education will all have a role in the shaping and delivery of the UK sports legacy. 3.2 Keeping the promise In 2006, the Labour Government made a commitment to increase the number of people playing sport three15 times a week by one million by 2013. A baseline of 6,815,000 was set in 2007. The figures published in 2011 as part of the Sport England Active People Survey No.5 showed only a modest increase to 6,924,000 in the number of people participating in regular sporting activity. The survey also indicated that 17 sports had actually registered a decline in the number of people playing once a week since 2007. Only four sports: mountaineering, table tennis, netball and athletics showed a significant increase over that period. The Active People survey figures published in December 2011 based on telephone interviews with 166,000 people gave even more cause for concern16 as the gender and age gaps widened:

• compared with Active People Survey 2 the number of 16-19 year olds playing sport decreased from 930,400 to 825,000 with drops in football, tennis and swimming

• three times a week participation amongst women decreased in the same period from 2,788,000 to 2,682,000

• Only one third of 18 year old girls compared with two thirds of 18 year old boys regularly participated in sport.

3.3 Government community sport legacy initiatives Two months after this feasibility study was commissioned, the funding landscape for a sporting legacy changed considerably due to the launch of the DCMS-Sport England initiative, Creating a sporting habit for life – a new youth sport strategy (January 2012). This initiative goes part of the way to meeting the challenge of delivering a community sport legacy. Funding has come from a 20% increase in lottery allocation for sport. This reinstates part of the funding that was previously top-sliced from the Lottery to finance the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the construction of venues. The DCMS has stated that these reforms will add a further £500 million to investment in sport and a further £1 billion will be invested in youth sport as part of the new youth sport strategy. The initiative has been broadly welcomed with the caveat that it is principally the redirection of existing funding. The following observations were made by Legacy 2013> Fund stakeholders about Creating a sporting habit for life – a new youth sport strategy: The time frame

• The commitment is welcomed but it only extends to a maximum of five years after the Games and, in common with commercial organisations, community sport organisations need a longer planning horizon to ensure business continuity

• The initiative concentrates on sports participation rather than sport for community development.

Schools and college based sport advantages and disadvantages • The concept of using schools, colleges and local sports clubs to bridge the gap to help

decrease the drop-off in sport participation after 16 and any increase in physical activity is warmly welcomed

• The initiative assumes a youthful interest in sport and seeks to ensure that the 90% of young people who are positively engaged with sport continue this into adult life

14 The Mayoral Development Corporation is established under Part 7 of the Localism Bill and commenced operation in April 2012. It has overall authority over the Olympic Park and surrounding area including planning and development powers. It is chaired by the Mayor of London Boris Johnson with the London Legacy Development Corporation acting as its delivery arm. 15 This target was dropped by the incoming Coalition Government in 2011. The DCMS Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt stated in a Guardian interview that there would be a new “more meaningful target”. 16 A more detailed analysis can be found at www.sportengland.org.uk


• It is not clear what thought has been given to the remaining 10% who have no interest in sport at school. Consideration needs to be given to those young people who may have been inspired by the Games but were unenthusiastic about or absent from school sport and may therefore be less likely to join a sports club.

• What measures will be taken to avoid the outcomes of past initiatives which saw active young people become even more active whilst the inactive remained inactive?

Accessing the support available – the community perspective

• The £50 million earmarked for the community sector may mainly go to established sports clubs and not charities and community organisations working in disadvantaged areas and using community sport as a tool for community development

• Contracts signed with National Governing Bodies will be performance related. However, it is not clear at this stage what happens if a major sport falls short of agreed targets. Could another organisation take over the contract to deliver a participation strategy for a major sport if its governing body fails to deliver against its Sport England contract? Or is that sport simply dropped from the initiative?

Creating a sporting habit for life – a new youth sport strategy has been welcomed as a continuation of the commitment to legacy made under the Sport England People Places Play initiative. If the initiative delivers against the promise made in Government’s Beyond 2012 – The London 2012 Legacy Story (DCMS, March 2012) it will create. 6,000 new community sports clubs based in schools. 3.4 Factors inhibiting community sport participation Sport England CEO Jennie Price cited cost as an inhibiting factor to participation:

“We are working in a tough climate, with a third of those playing less sport putting it down to economic factors.” 17

The causes for the stagnation, or even decrease, in participation in community sport and physical activity in the UK and the pressure on sport as a tool for community development are multi-facetted and complex. Social deprivation may be an important factor in levels of sports participation but it is unlikely to be the sole determining factor otherwise the London Boroughs of Lambeth and Camden would not enjoy similar levels of sports participation as the Royal Borough of Richmond upon Thames18. Lambeth in particular performs better than wealthier parts of London in terms of community sport participation. Debate continues about the impact of economic, social, cultural and demographic factors. Several organisations responding to the feasibility study survey also expressed the concern that securing a community sport legacy could slip down the political agenda after September 2012. 3.5 Impact of new London 2012 venues Government will highlight the more tangible aspects of a successful Olympic legacy such as the world class facilities at the Velodrome, Copper Box Handball Arena, Aquatics Centre and Olympic Stadium. Some community sport organisations expressed their concern in the survey and consultation that these iconic venues will be used most by well-resourced sports groups rather than encouraging participation by inactive people who may be excluded by economic or social factors. Less well-resourced groups may need support to take full advantage of the new opportunities offered by the Olympic Park. Countering these concerns is the fact that BETTER19, (a social enterprise operating over 100 venues and employing more than 5,000 staff with a commitment to community access) has won the ten-year contract to operate the Aquatics Centre and the Copper Box Handball Arena. Based on a projected 800,000 visits per year the contract stipulates that the

17 Sport England media release, 14 December 2011. 18 A Sporting Future for London, GLA, April 2009 and subsequent Sport England Active People surveys. 19 Previously known as Greenwich Leisure Limited.


price of swimming at the Aquatics Centre or for hiring a court at the Handball Arena 20will be the same as the average local pool or sports centre. The Velodrome and Eton Manor sports complex will be operated by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, an organisation which has a similar commitment to community access. 3.6 Previous Olympic Games – the SPEAR Report Some commentators and policymakers claim that the simple act of watching inspirational Olympic sport and British medallists stepping on to the podium will inspire previously inactive people to take up sport without the need for other intervention. The most authoritative study on the subject of sports participation following major sporting events is A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Developing a Physical Activity, Sport and Health Legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games21, known as the SPEAR Report. Central to the findings of the SPEAR report, which was the first academically rigorous review of the evidence on a global scale, is the contention that there is no hard evidence of a direct causal relationship between the inspirational power of the Olympic Games and increased sport participation. There is, however, evidence to suggest that with the right intervention the potential exists for the Olympic Games, or other elite events (such as the 2017 World Athletics Championships to be held in London), to make a positive impact on sports participation and the use of sport for community development. The following key points should be noted from the SPEAR report:

• there is no direct, inherent, causal relationship between elite events and participation in community sport

• there is a general consensus about the need to plan supplementary activities to lever the power of major sporting events such as the Olympic Games

• if supplementary activity is planned there could be a positive impact because social capital is engaged to empower communities and improve individual and collective behaviour

• supplementary activities may contribute to behavioural change including healthier lifestyles

• new Olympic sports facilities can have a positive impact on participation levels, particularly among children and young people, providing that local facilities are not closed or have their funding reduced to pay for the new iconic venues

• evidence for a “trickle-down” effect on sports participation from seeing inspirational sport live or on television is limited and usually short-term

• following a major sporting event such as an Olympic Games there may be an increase in the frequency of participation by existing participants rather than new participation

• elite athlete role models may have an impact on sports participation amongst young people but generally this is restricted to their own geographic and/or ethnic communities and is not a general determining factor

Data has rarely been collected or measured on sports participation following a city hosting Olympic Games. London is the first city to propose the transformative effect and health benefits of participation in sport as a central part of the rationale for staging the Olympic Games. Unlike other host cities London also has at its disposal a measurement standard to judge such impact – the Sport England Active People Survey. Despite criticisms of the evaluation techniques and telephone-based interviews made by, amongst others, Minister of Sport Hugh Robertson MP, London at least has a system in place to measure impact and invest in those interventions that could most 20 The Multi-‐Sport Arena which operates as the Handball Arena during the Games-‐is scheduled to open in 2013 and the Aquatics Centre which will undergo extensive re-‐modelling to reduce the spectator capacity for legacy use from 17,000 to 3,000 is expected to re-‐open in 2014. 21 Centre for Sport, Physical Education & Activity Research (SPEAR), Canterbury Christ Church University. August 2008, Mike Weed, Esther Coren, Jo Fiore.


effectively change behaviour and improve health and well-being. The inspirational power of the Olympic and Paralympic Games is not in doubt. Evidence from previous Games however, demonstrates that we cannot rely on the event alone to drive up participation or improve community development through sport. There is even some evidence to suggest that sport participation directly following the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games actually decreased.22 3.7 Evaluation of the legacy promise 2012-13 In February 2012 the DCMS published Beyond 2012, the London 2012 Legacy Story. It paints an unwaveringly optimistic picture of the economic, social and sporting legacy of the entire London 2012 project which is described as an example of best practice for future Olympic and Paralympic Games. Its relentlessly upbeat assessment has aroused a certain amount of scepticism in the community sport sector. The DCMS report makes the following claims for the immediate post-Games sports landscape:

• £1 billion to be invested in youth sport over the next five years through the new youth sport strategy

• 6,000 community sports clubs to be created by local schools, as well as better sports facilities and more professional support for colleges and universities

• 60% of government money provided to national sport bodies to be focused on the key 14-25 year age group, with a new payment-by-results system providing added rigour

• £500 million invested through Lottery reforms • up to 1,000 local sports venues to be upgraded under the £135 million Places People

Play programme • £30 million to support a regional network of major sport and leisure centres • 100,000 adults will participate in multiple Olympic or Paralympic sports under a

nationwide Gold Challenge programme by the end of 2012 • 200,000 Londoners are expected to benefit from the London Mayor’s Participation

Programme, with more than 10% of these previously inactive • London Mayoral programmes are also upgrading facilities and encouraging more people

to become coaches. On its final visit before the Games the London 2012 Evaluation Committee of the IOC praised the work that LOCOG had done to secure a lasting legacy. Compared with previous host cities such as Athens (where the legacy company was only established six months after the Games ended) and Sydney (where the Olympic stadium lay unused for many years), London had secured a legacy use for most of the main venues before the Games started. Evaluating whether or not the promise of a community sports legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games has also been kept will be left to DCMS which has commissioned a consortium led by Grant Thornton and including; Ecorys, Oxford Economics and Loughborough University, to undertake a comprehensive meta-evaluation of all the outputs, outcomes, impacts, benefits, and value for money of investment in the 2012 Games. The meta-evaluation will pull together the results of evaluations of individual legacy programmes, projects and initiatives, and use these with additional research to evaluate the overall legacy of the Games. It will aim to address overarching questions such as the impact of the Games on the UK economy and also their impact on sports participation. 23 Two more stages and reports are planned for 2015 and 2020 but these have not yet been commissioned because they fall outside the current Comprehensive Spending Review. It is not certain therefore, that this important final stage of the long-term evaluation of legacy impact will ever be completed. In addition, some commentators including the former Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, the Rt. Hon Tessa Jowell, have signalled that the Government may restructure departments and abolish the DCMS following the Games. The Government has stated that it has no plans to disband the DCMS. It is possible, however, that the 2015 and 2020 phases of evaluation will not be completed and consequently there may be no methodology or benefits review plan in place to judge what impact the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games have had on community sport in the UK.

22 Hayne, Jill (2001) Socio-‐economic impact of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games , Barcelona Centre d’Estudis Olympics UAB 23 The meta-‐evaluation consists of four phases. Full details can be found at www.dcms.gov.uk


4.0 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK As part of the feasibility study the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership surveyed a wide range of organisations and took into account the views of a number of stakeholders. Their responses made for thought provoking reading. Survey responses and interviews indicate strong demand and support for a lasting, independent, endowed fund to support community sport providing that:

• any fund avoids duplicating existing funding streams, and • does not compete for scarce resources from commercial sponsors and existing

Government funding Responses have indicated that Lottery funding, in particular Sport England’s People Places Play programme, have been well received and well managed. Funders as well as funded organisations report a need for further resources, particularly with regard to the provision of more core and revenue funding. Below is a summary of stakeholder feedback. 4.1 Community sport organisations Nearly all community sport organisations responding to the survey and consultations saw a real need for additional independent funding delivered through a lasting, independent endowed fund. They also had clear views on how any fund should be managed and what its objectives might be:

• a Legacy 2013> Fund should concentrate on sport as a tool for community development but not to the total exclusion of sport participation

• support should be directed to assist people to use sport to “be the best they can be” rather than directed to developing the next generation of elite athletes as this is being successfully delivered by UK Sport

• initially a Legacy 2013> Fund should focus on working with young people but not to the exclusion of programmes for older people

• despite the recently announced and well received Sport England legacy funding initiatives the principal concern remains that the period 2013-15 may see a squeeze in funding that threatens the viability of community organisations working in the field of community sport

• a Legacy 2013> Fund should work towards standardising impact measurement, quality standards and reporting and apply them consistently over time

London Youth, the umbrella organisation which represents over 400 non-uniformed youth organisations in Greater London and over 70,000 young people, has expressed deep concern about the community sports legacy. London Youth delivers the successful Getting Ready for the Games programme (see Section 5) and is supportive of attempts to establish an independent endowed fund taking LA84 as its inspiration:

“All the available evidence from previous major sporting events is that the only way to create a real legacy in terms of increased participation is to invest long-term in a community development approach getting young people into sport beyond the school gate, traditional sports and the usual suspects of already sporty young people engaged in specialist sports clubs. We believe the LA84 Foundation shows what can be achieved and we are delighted to be working closely with partners to try and bring about a similar legacy from London 2012.” Rosie Ferguson, CEO London Youth

Andy Sellins, the CEO of Cricket for Change, a dedicated sports charity using cricket to change the lives of disadvantaged young people, supported the Legacy 2013> Fund concept as follows:

“There is certainly the demand for an independent endowed fund to support community sport after the Games. There is currently the real risk of legacy projects coming to an end soon after the Games due to lack of funding. We’ve set up 32 disability cricket clubs across London with Mayor of London funding and we’re struggling to put together the funding to continue running them after February next year. Up until this year we were


used to getting around a 60% success rate with trusts and foundations for our disability work in particular and so far this year we have a 0% success rate.”

StreetGames, a UK-wide sports charity that brings sport to the doorstep of young people in disadvantaged communities gave qualified support to the Legacy 2013> Fund concept, raising the need for independence and a desire to simplify the over-complicated funding environment:

“Any additional funding that can be found to support organisations that have a proven track record for delivering participation is a positive. The need to increase participation and the latent demand for sport, especially amongst those from recognised deprived areas is clearly demonstrated through existing research – for example the Active People surveys. The funding landscape is already confusing, especially for small or medium sized organisations who are often charities or third sector organisations who are particularly short of capacity with which to spend time looking for and making varied and repeated applications for funding. Overall simplification of the funding picture is required – this funding, if it becomes available, needs to be pushed in a direction which furthers the aim of simplification. The focus, either way, should remain on simplifying the funding structure that doorstep sport organisations are already subject to …there is a need for an independent endowed fund to support grass roots sport post the Olympics. This fund should not be aligned to any particular political party or influencing body. ”

Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme, an organisation with over 20 years’ experience working in the field of community sport in east London, gave its strong support for the concept of a Legacy 2013> Fund:

“With the exception of the soon to be established Newham Legacy Trust which will benefit organisations operating within that borough there has been no similar financial legacy vehicle established to support community sport long-term after the Games have finished. This is of great concern, not only because of the Olympic promises made in 2005, but also because after 2012 Government and private sector priorities may change and move on to the next project. It is crucial that something is established now to capture the ‘Olympic windfall’ from the event itself and the spirit generated that could benefit generations to come.”

Neil Taylor CEO, Leyton Orient Community Sport Programme A national education charity that opted to remain anonymous welcomed the concept of the Legacy 2013> Fund and made the following observations:

“..an independent endowed fund supporting grassroots sport to run post London 2012 would be a step towards delivering the kind of long-lasting Olympic legacy that organisations like ours envisage. However the funds it generates need to be channelled appropriately …That this fund would be created after the Games shows admirable commitment to sustain the boost they have given sports. It might be worth launching the fund when excitement surrounding the Olympics is at its height. The real legacy of the Olympics should be a social one as much as a sporting one, and funding “sport for development” programmes in the neediest communities is the way to achieve this social change through sport.”

Laureus Sport for Good Foundation supported the concept of a Legacy 2013> Fund and argued that it could not only make a positive social impact but also be proved cost effective and save government money providing that grantmaking could reach the most effective organisations and funds were invested wisely:

“The demand for increased funding into grassroots sport across the UK appears high. The impact is also well documented – both in terms of returns to communities and tax payers. For example, the Laureus Foundation produced a report in 2011 called Teenage Kicks 24showing that - across 3 UK sports based crime prevention programmes

24 For the full Teenage Kicks report visit www.laureus.com.foundation/publications


assessed – an average £5 return was created for every £1 invested (including savings on costs associated with policing, courts, victim compensation).”

The economic case for investing in community sport and a review of some of the evidence is laid out in Appendix 1 of this report. 4.2 GLA and London Assembly The Legacy 2013> Fund Project Management Board enjoys a co-operative working relationship with the Sports Unit and the Olympic Unit of the GLA, which have given in principle support to the concept of an independent fund along the lines of the LA84 Foundation. The GLA Sports Unit also highlighted the concern that funding may drop in the years after the Games stating:

“Many of the organisations we are at present funding are concerned about the availability of funding after 2012”.

The Mayor of London established the London Community Sports Board (LCSB) to advise on the delivery of his sports legacy programme and to support and coordinate the delivery of sport across London. Two members of the group, Sangita Patel and Andy Sutch, have expressed their in principle support in a personal capacity for the Legacy 2013> Fund concept, providing that it addresses gaps in existing funding arrangements. The Greater London Assembly has already voiced its concerns about the post-Games community sports legacy. The Assembly report A sporting legacy for London?25 welcomed the progress made by the Mayor and his Sport Commissioner, Kate Hoey MP, on the delivery of the £15 million investment in the Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund. It also called for more work to be done on securing funding beyond March 2013 when the fund is due to close. One of the report’s four key findings states:

“The current funding arrangements run up to 2012 - The Mayor or his Sports Commissioner should report back to the Committee about his plans for delivering a sporting legacy after 2012.”

The development of a Legacy 2013> Fund could form part of a London-wide response to the community sports legacy following the 2012 Games. A key issue in any discussions with the Greater London Authority, the Greater London Assembly and other statutory bodies will be ensuring the kind of independence requested by community sport organisations. 4.3 Sport England The Legacy 2013> Fund Senior Project Manager, Paul Bower, and Trust for London CEO, Bharat Mehta, met Sport England CEO, Jennie Price, in late April 2012. The meeting was called to update her on progress and ensure that any plans for a Legacy 2013> Fund would not duplicate existing programmes or funding streams. The key points of that meeting are laid out below:

• Sport England welcomed the discussion because a lasting independent endowed Legacy 2013> Fund could be an attractive concept and help fill a gap in some funding

• Sport England understands that there are gaps in funding and that it cannot itself meet every need

• the focus of consultation on sport for development/sport for good rather than simply increasing sports participation was welcomed as the right approach

• Greater London might be the best area of operation because the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership is strong in this area and a London focus gives the concept a cohesion and practicality that might be otherwise lost in an England or UK wide proposal

However, there were also a number of more cautionary points which arose from the meeting. Sport England felt that the Legacy 2013> Fund concept needed further development:

• careful consideration is needed about the word “legacy”. The Legacy 2013> Fund should not

25 GLA Economic Development, Culture, Sport and Tourism Committee (EDCST) February 2011.


inadvertently give the impression that it is offering a complete solution to a sport for community development legacy

• collaborative decision-making needs to be at the heart of governance arrangements so that it is complementary to rather than in competition with existing funders and programmes

• if a Legacy 2013> Fund is established it needs to have a strong point of differentiation from Sport England in its vision and mission, making it clear that its funding and support are of activities not covered by Sport England and other agencies

• a Legacy 2013> Fund needs to raise new money rather than trying to tap into sponsorship sources which are already the targets of other sports organisations

• a Legacy 2013> Fund might be well advised to concentrate on raising money from philanthropists and high net worth individuals

Many of these points were already under consideration within the project and conclusions from further discussion have been integrated into the feasibility work. The Legacy 2013> Fund Senior Project Manager also updates Sport England on a regular basis. 4.4 LOCOG The Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership has not had an official meeting with the Board or senior management of LOCOG for their view. The Legacy 2013> Fund Senior Project Manager has briefed LOCOG CEO Paul Deighton and a briefing note has been circulated to the LOCOG senior management team. In the last two years’ of its existence LOCOG has often described its role as being the “shop window” for legacy. Its focus has been on delivering successful and inclusive Games. LOCOG will downsize rapidly after September 2013 but as the Legacy 2013> Fund progresses remaining senior management need to be engaged in the discussion. 4.5 British Olympic Foundation/British Olympic Association At the start of the project, the Legacy 2013> Fund Senior Project Manager met Jan Paterson, CEO of the British Olympic Foundation (BOF) and Head of Olympic Relations at the British Olympic Association (BOA), to assess whether any conflict of interest would make progress unfeasible. She welcomed the work of the feasibility study and offered helpful advice. The Legacy 2013> Fund partnership regularly updates her on progress. Any direct association with the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games as part of the Legacy 2013> Fund’s identity would, of course, be dependent on BOF/BOA agreement. 4.6 London local authorities The consensus view of local authority respondents to the survey is summarised below:

• grantmaking from a Legacy 2013> Fund should not be restricted to organisations working with young people but this group might be made a priority

• it would be desirable if any fund could establish some kind of retrospective association with the spirit of the London 2012 Games with the consent of the BOA

• any fund should not be drawn into discussions about funding criteria which state that applicants have to demonstrate that that any grantmaking is not replacing funding lost through local authority and/or government reduction in spending

• applications for funding should be judged on their quality and impact • continuity and sustainability of projects once funding has ended remains a major issue and is

likely to remain so in the current economic context • plans should incorporate existing networks such as Community Sport and Physical Activity

Networks. From the feedback so far received it appears that many London local authorities would welcome the establishment of a Legacy 2013> Fund providing that it does not duplicate existing funding streams. There is a demonstrable need for more funding that is not dependent on Government or local authorities. Resources for community sport are unlikely to come from the reduced London Councils’


grants scheme (whose total budget for 2013-14 is likely to be below £8 million). Community sport or the social benefits associated with it are not identified as a future priority.26 The survey was circulated to all 33 London local authorities. The London Borough of Newham has set up a borough-wide legacy fund which will be partly financed by revenue from the hire of Newham venues and facilities during the Games. This fund may be augmented after the Games by other income streams which are the subject of negotiation. Newham council officers have expressed in principle support for the Legacy 2013> Fund feasibility study. They stressed their objective of harvesting what they refer to as the “Olympic Windfall” of increased revenue during Games-time and the goodwill and interest afterwards to support community sport. To date Newham is the only local authority that has ring-fenced some of the additional income generated during the Games for community sport. The City of Westminster also responded to the survey in support of the Legacy 2013> Fund and advised against being too prescriptive over definitions of sport participation or sport for development:

“New funding and resources are needed for the community sports club sector to promote more opportunities to participate and progress in sport and a higher quality and more sustainable community sports club sector. Increased participation has consequential benefits (intended or not) including issues around public health, educational achievement, community cohesion, the environment, crime and public safety...any investment should be informed locally and we would suggest using the established Community Sport and Physical Activity Networks (CSPANs) to ensure maximum impact.”

Richard Barker, City of Westminster Sport Development Manager Support also came from the Royal Borough of Richmond upon Thames:

“There is undoubtedly demand for an independent fund to support community sport after the Olympics. It is assumed that the Mayor of London’s funding, e.g. PlaySport Fund will end, and this will leave a large gap. Funding of this nature will be of particular importance given the pressure on central and local government funding”

Colin Sinclair, Richmond upon Thames Sport Development Manager

26 London Council grant budgets; 2011-‐12 (£20.7m) 2012-‐2013( £12.5m) 2013-‐14(£8m) but this figure may be re-‐forecast lower. Funding priorities for the London Councils grant scheme have been set as; domestic violence, poverty. high impact crime, generic second tier service, services that voice a need, and specialist health needs.


5.0 BEST PRACTICE AND GAP ANALYSIS What kind of community sport activities are having difficulty accessing funding and how might a Legacy 2013> Fund learn from past successes as well as past mistakes? A key principle of any Legacy 2013> Fund would be the need to avoid duplication. An understanding of existing examples of best practice and where there are positive lessons to be learnt is essential to the business planning for a Legacy 2013> Fund. It is outside the scope of this study to give a detailed analysis of every community sport funding initiative. This study investigated the experience of two programmes both based in Greater London:

• London Youth’s Getting Ready for the Games and Beyond which supported inactive young people across Greater London to take up sport outside school hours

• Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund which has invested £15.5 million in facilities, training and revenue funding for community organisations across Greater London working in the area of community sport.

Both programmes may come to an end in March 2013 but the Mayor’s office is looking at future options for carrying on its work. 5.1 London Youth - Getting Ready for the Games27 Getting Ready for the Games and Beyond is London Youth’s sports development programme. It aims to increase the number of previously inactive young people playing sport and to build the long-term capacity of community-based youth organisations to deliver diverse and accessible sports programmes. London Youth aims to harness the hopes and opportunities of London 2012 to encourage and enable young Londoners to participate in and develop a life-long love of sport and healthy activities. The broader objective is to raise levels of personal and social health, confidence and well-being. Getting Ready for the Games and Beyond supports youth organisations within London Youth’s membership by providing:

• taster sessions in athletics, basketball, football, indoor rowing, non-contact boxing, parkour/free running, street dance, table tennis, street 20/20 cricket and tag rugby

• free access to national governing bodies’ training courses • coaching resource packs • free sports equipment • passionate volunteers • structured competitions

The programme was initially funded by the Football Foundation and the London Development Agency via the Young Londoners’ Fund and then by the Mayor’s Legacy Fund for Sport. It was the first pan-London youth programme to be awarded the London 2012 Inspire Mark. It worked with 75 community organisations, in partnership with 18 National Governing Bodies and specialist sports agencies, and from its start in June 2009 to March 2012 has achieved the following:

• 5,208 young people completed the six-week sports programme • an additional 9,144 young people took part in the programme via youth clubs28 • 75 youth clubs have been provided with sports equipment and resource packs • 619 youth workers and young leaders gained National Governing Body coaching

qualifications • 41% increase in previously inactive young people taking part in sport in Getting Ready

youth clubs • 84 young leaders gained paid coaching or sports and leisure work as a result of training

they received through the programme.

27 For more information on Getting Ready for the Games and Beyond and case studies contact Zoe Mellis, Head of Sports Development at London Youth, at [email protected]. 28 50% of whom were previously totally inactive outside of compulsory school sport


Getting Ready for the Games has succeeded in an area where many other initiatives have failed, increasing activity amongst young people who were previously inactive. With an investment of £1 million over three years, using the proven London Youth’s Getting Ready for the Games and After model, a Legacy 2013> Fund could:

o expand London Youth’s reach to cover 100 deprived communities across London o provide 7,500 young people with regular sports provision – 3,000 of whom will not be

involved in any activity outside school o train 800 young people (including youth workers) as sports coaches.

Another area where the Legacy 2013> Fund could benefit from the experience of London Youth is in how young people can help shape policy and check that funding criteria and funded programmes are fit for purpose. Their young people’s advisory board, Dare London, is made up of 15 young people who are an integral part of London Youth operations and decision-making. Aged 16-23, Dare Londoners volunteer to support and guide the organisation’s work at all levels. Members are involved in the recruitment of new staff, assessing quality standards of member youth clubs, designing and develop youth programmes, and a member also sits on the Board of Trustees of London Youth. A Legacy 2013> Fund could helpfully use some of this experience as a model for engagement with young people. 5.2 Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund

This £15.5 million Fund was established in 2008 with the twin aims of:

• raising participation in London, with the intention of ensuring a sports-based legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

• increasing capacity in the community-based and volunteer-led sports and fitness sector in London. The investment was triggered by the sports participation commitment in the London 2012 bid and was also driven by the Mayor’s desire to reach Londoners who do little or no physical exercise.

The policy context to this objective is:

• nearly 50% of Londoners are classified as inactive according to the Chief Medical Officer’s definition

• inactivity costs NHS London £105 million per annum

The Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund has four goals:

• get more people active - supported by the £5.5 million Participation Fund

• transform the sporting infrastructure - supported by the £7 million facilities fund

• build capacity and skills - supported by the £3 million skills fund managed by SkillsActive

• maximise benefits of sport to London’s society

The Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund has made a substantial impact:

• 76 facilities have been awarded grants, with a projected increased capacity of an extra 44,000 users

• 15,000+ people received coach and sports skills training, at an average of approximately £185 per head


• 362,000 additional volunteer hours pledged to community sports organisations

• the GLA’s FreeSport programme which developed an online database to link Londoners with local sports clubs was particularly successful, reaching 17,000 new participants at a cost of approximately £5 per head

• £4 million was invested over two years in 37 organisations expected to increase participation by 250,000, of whom 53,000 (26%) were previously inactive. The GLA Sports Unit has also standardised impact measurement and evaluation by asking organisations they support to use the Views outcome monitoring platform developed by Substance29. In addition to the hard impacts the following policy context should be noted::

• Sport England’s People Places Play is using some of the GLA policy principles

• the GLA’s approach to targeting disabled people was incorporated in some of NHS London’s work in its Inclusive and Active2 strategy.

The impact of both the Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund and London Youth’s Getting Ready for the Games raises three questions:

• How will the lessons learnt be captured so that they can be used in future funding programmes?

• How can systems such as the online community sport search facility used as part of FreeSport 30be retained after funding ends?

• How can successful projects funded under the Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund and Getting Ready for the Games be supported when their present funding ceases

Initial findings from an in-house review of the Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund can be found at Appendix 2 of this report. 5.3 Continuity of funding after 2012 Some organisations with low fixed costs whose funding expires in the years following 2012 may be self-sustaining due to low overheads and/or alternative sources of funding. Other organisations submitted sustainability plans based on the anticipation of forging commercial partnerships and may struggle to do so. Raising sponsorship has become increasingly difficult for small organisations during an economic recession. Commercial brands understandably look to concentrate on larger projects where they can raise brand awareness and achieve return on investment from any sponsorship. Not every community sports charity will be able to build the kind of mutually beneficial relationship that organisations such as StreetGames have developed over several years with Coca-Cola31. This successful partnership has delivered the following:

• 40 full-time paid posts32 with the Coca-Cola events team during the Games for 40 young people from StreetGames

• support to get 110,000 young people from some of the UK’s most disadvantaged areas, active and playing sport in their communities

29 www.views.coop 30 http://www.molpresents.com/freesport 31 This work is funded through Coca-‐Cola UK and Ireland. Worldwide the Coca-‐Cola Foundation distributed $3.7m worldwide to fitness and nutrition programmes in Q4 of 2011 to fitness and nutrition programmes. One of its four global priorities is Healthy and Active Lifestyles to support access to exercise, physical activity and nutritional education programmes, programmes that motivate behaviour modification, and programmes that encourage lifestyle/behavioural changes. 32 These posts are temporary but it is hoped that some at least will lead to full time posts with Coca-‐Cola or events management companies. This compares favourably with number of companies and charities that are offering unpaid long term internships.


The increasingly competitive sports sponsorship market presents the added danger that despite good work done by the GLA and other funders, community sport organisations which in good faith forecast budgets based on commercial sponsorship income to fill the gap, will struggle to generate revenue from 2013 onwards. 5.4 Gap analysis As part of the Legacy 2013> Fund feasibility study we conducted an analysis of where gaps exist in funding for community sport from 2012-14 in Greater London. The principal findings are: Capital and revenue funding issues

• Sport England’s People Places Play initiative is making a major impact particularly the investment in playing fields and the building of new facilities and renovation of old ones

• A great deal of funding is for capital rather than revenue and where it does cover revenue, this is generally for projects rather than core costs

• funding to finance capital projects is over-subscribed but is still more abundant than funding for revenue and core funding which is very scarce

• an example of the move away from revenue to capital can be seen in the Football Foundation’s decision to fund only capital projects

Reaching people in the long-term The Creating a Sporting Habit for Life initiative announced by the DCMS and Sport England in January 2012 has been widely welcomed. However, it is:

• directed at increased sports participation in the 14-25 age group only • targeted at young people who are already involved in sporting activity • time bound to a funding horizon of 2017.

The big picture for London

• There is an appetite for the continuation of the Mayor's Sports Legacy Fund with its three strands of skills, facilities and revenue but the most likely outcome is that the GLA Sports Unit may look to other agencies and the private sector to support successful projects after 2013.

• local authorities such as London Borough of Newham and the City of Westminster have managed to create and maintain funding streams for community sport but the picture across Greater London is patchy.

Demand and access to funding

• a great deal of project funding comes to an end between 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014 with no clear pathways to continuation funding and a worsening economic climate that makes securing sponsorship very difficult

• income to the Big Lottery Fund may increase by £400 million after 2013, but the timescale is unclear and demand for this funding will be great from a variety of sources

• in response to a parliamentary question in February 2012, Olympics Minister John Penrose MP confirmed that the £675 million top-sliced from Lottery distributors by the previous government to help pay for the Games may not be repaid until 2025

• it remains difficult for community organisations using sport as a tool for community development to understand what resources are available as they do not have resources to employ a development and funding officer to research potential funders and help write bids.


Fig 1 Legacy 2013> Fund SWOT Analysis

OPPORTUNITIES

• London 2012 brings national and global attention on sport and legacy

• A point in time when resources have been earmarked for grass roots sport

• Increased interest in grass roots sport and its transformative effect on building communities

• Policy context which sees the Government looking to cost effective ways of increasing community cohesion and promoting well-being

• Political support for encouraging philanthropy and giving

THREATS

• Intense competition for government resources during an economic downturn

• A crowded sponsorship market with many organisations competing for funds and attention

• Intense competition for sponsorship income and donations as organisations seek to replace Government funding

• Proposed changes in the amount of income philanthropists can write off against tax may reduce the potential income to a Legacy 2013> Fund

STRENGTHS

• Support of concept from Greater London Authority and interest from DCMS Olympics Unit and Office of Civil Society

• Ability to build on impetus from Mayor’s Legacy Fund for Sport and Getting Ready for the Games

• Broad consensus on the need for an independent fund • Successful precedent in LA84 Foundation. • Strong youth umbrella organisation in London working in

field of sport development • Interest from a national media partner • Positive dialogue with Sport England senior management

WEAKNESSES

• Tight time scale to launch to take advantage of any 2012 effect • Lack of seed funding to take idea to launch • Lack of a banking/finance partner to help reach corporate sector

and high net wealth individuals


6.0 SCOPE, REMIT, CRITERIA AND EVALUATION The geographical limits and remit of a Legacy 2013> Fund and how its impact might be measured. A criticism from community sport organisations is the lack of consistency from funders in the type of monitoring information they require. Survey responses and consultation suggest that there is widespread support for an independent lasting funding stream to support community sport starting in, but not restricted to, Greater London. Fundamental to any business planning process will be to decide:

• what a Legacy 2013> Fund should fund and where • what the criteria for grantmaking could be • how the impact and effectiveness of the fund would be measured.

6.1 Funding ethos Consultations and survey results indicated that a Legacy 2013> Fund should exist to:

• support organisations making transformational change through the medium of community sport

• address disadvantage • consider the Olympic and Paralympic values as a starting point

Partners also believe that a Legacy 2013> Fund should concentrate on those activities, sectors and groups that are outside the remit and priorities of existing funding streams, particularly those managed by Sport England and the DCMS. Any decision to base the Legacy 2013> Fund on the Olympic values of Respect, Excellence and Friendship and the Paralympic values of Courage, Determination, Inspiration and Equality may need to be subject to agreement with the British Olympic Association and the British Paralympic Association. 6.2 Geographic scope This study considered three options for the geographic scope of any fund: Greater London, England and the UK. The more limited scope of the six Olympic host London boroughs of Barking, Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest was ruled out. The six host boroughs have their own dedicated community sport legacy activities through initiatives such as Legacy 2020 (managed by East London Business Alliance), the London Borough of Newham Legacy Trust and the work being done by the London Legacy Development Corporation which includes the new Legacy List charity. All Londoners have directly or indirectly contributed to the cost of the Games through a council tax precept. A great many UK citizens have directly or indirectly contributed to the cost of the Games through buying Lottery tickets and the £600 million+ which was diverted from Lottery spending on good causes to help finance the construction of the Olympic Park. These factors would make a major call on Government and/or Lottery funding to support the founding of an endowed fund restricted to beneficiaries living in east London difficult to sustain. It is also fully accepted that the UK-wide nature of the Olympic project means that London could not have a disproportionate call on any extra funding released for community sport from any operational profits made by the Games or any unspent contingency from the construction of the Olympic Park. Any call on government or Lottery funds based on the matched funding model outlined in Section 7 of this study for the start-up capital of an endowed fund restricted to Greater London could be based on indices of deprivation weighted by population. The LA84 Foundation decided to restrict its field of operation: 90% of its grantmaking is made in Los Angeles and 10% is made in the other seven counties of Southern California where Olympic events were staged. A Legacy 2013>Fund might therefore begin with projects in Greater London but look at the feasibility of testing and rolling out the model across England and then the UK, perhaps concentrating on locations that had hosted Olympic events such as Weymouth or Broxbourne. At present the partnership is strong in London and has the support of the GLA Sports Unit, the London Federation of Sport and Recreation and other key London stakeholders. Therefore, an initial focus


on Greater London seems the most logical starting point. A UK-wide radio network with a market leading presence in London and over 7 million weekly listeners in major conurbations in England, Wales and Scotland has expressed interest in supporting the Legacy 2013> Fund. Such a partnership with a private sector media partner would be a positive factor if a decision were taken to start in London and then roll out slowly across the UK. Although based in London, the Legacy 2013> Partnership and its wider network has experience in operating across the UK. The Community Development Foundation (CDF) is a member of the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership and could offer first-hand experience in an England or UK-wide roll out. With 45 years knowledge and expertise, CDF recently transformed from a non-departmental public body (NDPB) into a social enterprise. They retain strong links with, and understanding of, Government and the civil service; CDF is one of six organisations in the Cabinet Office’s (Office for Civil Society) Framework Agreement, allowing them to deliver grants programmes for seven government departments. Their current and recent projects include the Neighbourhood Support Fund: a six-year £58 million programme for the Department for Education (DfE), working with community organisations to support young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs); and Grassroots Grants: a £130 million government grants and matched endowment programme. Comic Relief is a founding member of the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership which supports community programmes using sport across the United Kingdom. Comic Relief has high brand recognition, a strong reputation, a proven track record in raising new money and a strong reputation as a grantmaker and in the collaborative programme, Sport Relief. sported, the UK charity founded by Sir Keith Mills, Deputy Chairman of LOCOG, supports sport for development in disadvantaged communities and has been a part of the Legacy 2013> Fund Project Management Board. It has established a UK-wide operation. Nine regional managers are now in place across England and country managers are in post in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Full-time staff are supported by 180 volunteer mentors around the UK, offering tailored business advice and one-to-one mentoring to assist providers of sport for development in becoming professional, sustainable and able to reach their full potential. sported should continue to be involved in any discussions concerning an England or UK wide roll-out of the Legacy 2013> Fund concept. Within the existing partnership there is a wealth of experience to ensure that a Legacy 2013> Fund would be effectively planned and managed and could make a lasting positive impact on the communities across the United Kingdom. The devolved nature of Government in the UK means that any attempt to expand the Legacy 2013> Fund concept beyond England could only have a full impact with the full consent and participation of the relevant officers and agencies of the Assemblies of Northern Ireland and Wales and the Scottish Parliament. 6.3 Age range The legacy promise made by Lord Coe in Singapore in July 2005, reaffirmed at the lighting of the Olympic torch at Olympia on 10 May 2012 and at the Olympic Games Opening Ceremony concentrates on inspiring young people. The programme objectives of the Olympic Board broadened this commitment out to include “all groups” in 2006. Many of the organisations we consulted and heard from in the survey, expressed to view that a Legacy 2013> Fund should not restrict itself exclusively to supporting organisations working with young people. There is a fundamental tension between what many community sport organisations believe is the broad need and what might create the most appealing proposition for Government, sponsors and donors. The LA84 Foundation for example restricts its funding to community sports organisations that work with 6-17 year olds. LA84 Vice President of Programs and Grants, Patrick Escobar, advised on the importance of keeping a tight focus and explained that during the consultation period


they resisted calls to widen the scope of grantmaking to older age groups. One way of resolving this dilemma could be to take a decision that the Legacy 2013> Fund should initially focus on younger people but leave the way open to ring-fence a small part of the Fund to support community sport for older age groups. Consideration should also be given to looking at how investment from a Legacy 2013> Fund might make a priority of youth and community organisations rather than school sport, addressed by existing DCMS/Sport England programmes. 6.4 Sport participation and sport for development A considerable amount of debate and discussion took place during the consultation about the merits and disadvantages of concentrating on funding sport for development (also known as sport for good) as against sports participation. The Legacy 2013> Fund survey asked the following question on this subject:

“If a fund is established should it concentrate on: increasing levels of participation in grassroots sport and organised physical activity, or sport and organised physical activity as a tool for community development? (i.e. sport for development, sport for change, sport for good or both of the above?).

Most respondents agreed that the focus should fall on where sport can assist in making transformational change in communities, rather than simply funding more people to participate in sport irrespective of the social outcome. Comic Relief and Laureus Sport for Good also agreed strongly that the core business of a Legacy 2013> Fund should be to support community sport programmes where they are addressing disadvantage and facilitating change at a community level. The current funding environment and gap analysis also suggest that a Legacy 2013> Fund should focus on generating resources for longer term revenue and core funding (at least three to five years) for projects using sport as a tool for community development. The rationale behind this position is:

• current DCMS and Sport England funding initiatives concentrate specifically on short term funding for projects which increase sports participation, particularly in the 14-25 age group

• organisations using sport as a tool for change in their communities report increased difficulty in raising funds due to cutbacks in local authority and government support

• expert advice indicates that potential corporate donors are more likely to support a proposition that is centred on building communities and supporting opportunity and aspiration rather than simply getting more people to participate in more sport

However, such an approach should not entirely rule out funding projects which set increased sports participation as their prime objective. Respondents to the survey, particularly local authorities, warned against being too prescriptive. They provided examples of how sports participation in its own right can have consequential benefits in crime reduction, public health and social cohesion. 6.5 Social stigma and poverty indicators One informative addition to the debate came from an athletics club based in a deprived part of the West Midlands with very high levels of unemployment. A community leader warned that programmes which overtly target the disadvantaged can be rejected by people on low incomes because they do not want to be labelled as “in need” and can find such an approach patronising. The respondent to the survey, who did not wished to be named, commented:

“They know only too well that they don’t have any money and life is tough, but letters offering help for disadvantaged families often go in the bin because they don’t want to be the object of what they see as charity from ‘do-gooders’. We have to be a lot more sensitive to these kinds of issues if we really want to reach these families.”

An additional factor to consider in any targeting strategy is that social deprivation data collected via the census by Government does not always give an accurate picture of the experience of small communities and the individuals within them. Boroughs such as Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster may appear to have very high average annual incomes but this hides significant pockets of social deprivation exacerbated by high prices for local facilities. The smallest geographical area that is routinely covered by census data on social deprivation is the


council ward but even this relatively small area can hide pockets of deprivation in wealthy areas.33 6.6 Additionality The economic downturn and spending cuts have meant that many community sport organisations are losing funding, particularly from local authorities. Many independent funders such as trusts and foundations do not wish to simply step in to fill this gap. The Legacy 2013> Fund survey asked the following question to test opinion on this issue: “Should applicants to any fund have to demonstrate that that any grant-making is not replacing funding lost through local authority and/or Government reductions in spending?” All respondents, including local authorities responded in the negative. Laureus Sport for Good Foundation summed up the general consensus with the following comment: “Emphatically no. Loss of funding in this environment is an inaccurate measure of a project’s quality, as many excellent programmes have had grants revoked in the context of broader cuts. Applications should be judged on whether they deliver bang for buck – plain and simple.” StreetGames also stressed their belief that applicants to a Legacy 2013> Fund should not have to demonstrate that the funding they applied for was not replacing funds lost through Government or local authority cut backs They argued convincingly that the emphasis of an independent endowed fund should be on supporting organisations with a track record in delivering community sport programmes in communities that could, ”demonstrate the value of their programme against a set of quality criteria”. Funders that stipulate that their grant-making should not be replacing lost funding from statutory agencies are reporting that it is becoming increasingly difficult assess this criteria and where to apply time limits. If a project lost local authority funding in 2010/11, should funders consider making a grant to maintain the same service in 2012/13? Or does the prohibition continue indefinitely? The consensus view is that a Legacy 2013> Fund should not be drawn into this kind of discussion, but instead make grants on the basis of quality and whether a project or programme is likely to support transformational change in the community it serves. 6.7 Evaluation, measurement and quality standards Rigorous evaluation of the social impacts and cost effectiveness of projects and programmes supported by a Legacy> 2013 Fund must be put at the heart of business planning. A Legacy 2013> Fund is unlikely to attract investment from Government, lottery distributors and private sector investors unless a consistent approach to evaluation and monitoring is in place from the start. Key stakeholders will need to be able to measure the effectiveness and impact of the Fund and the programmes it supports34. Crucially, grassroots sports and community organisations are looking for continuity of grantmaking criteria and impact assessment in the long-term. A great deal of research and commentary has concentrated on the fact that many voluntary sector service providers do not have effective systems in place to measure the outcomes of their work. The Education Select Committee, Third Report, Services for Young People, June 2011 stated: “We find that many services are unable or unwilling to measure the improvements they make in outcomes for young people.” In December 2010 the GLA commissioned Community Links (a community anchor and charity helping 4,000 disadvantaged east Londoners annually) to run workshops and conduct a survey to inform their work on developing a unified framework to measure the impact of youth work. The survey revealed the following as constraints on voluntary sector organisations’ ability to evaluate programme outcomes effectively:

33 The Chiswick Turnham Green ward in the London Borough of Hounslow appears in the census as one of the wealthiest parts of London but the Hogarth Estate within it contains a high percentage of single parent families with small children on low incomes. 34 An analysis of the operational and financial benefits of effective evaluation is provided in the publication A Journey to Greater Impact – Six Charities that Learnt to Measure Impact Better, Benedict Rickey, Tris Lumley and Eibhlin Ogain. New Philanthropy Capital , November 2011 http://www.philanthropycapital.org/


• lack of time - 72% • lack of funding – 64% • lack of expertise – 49%

Project size did not appear to be a determining factor in a service providers’ ability to conduct the kind of rigorous evaluation which is increasingly demanded by funders:

• 72% of small projects did not have an evaluation plan • 64% of medium-sized projects did not have an evaluation plan • 62% of large projects did not have an evaluation plan

The lack of consistent evaluation is not purely the result of unwillingness on the part of voluntary sector service providers. The lack of consistent and rigorous shared standards by funders also plays a part in gaps in the evidence base. Community sport organisations indicated they would welcome more continuity and consistency in monitoring, standards of evidence, evaluation, impact assessment and quality standards. Many want to evaluate their work more effectively but they need support. This feasibility study has identified the following additional barriers to effective evaluation:

• lack of dedicated funding for evaluation as part of grants packages • funders want increasingly rigorous evaluation but are unwilling to pay for it35 • lack of consistency in the management data that funded organisations and service providers

are expected to collect and analyse • lack of resources and expertise to conduct long-term longitudinal research over a period of

several years • different funders supporting similar areas of work will require entirely different management

data and Key Performance Indicators • requirements for evaluation and data can change annually even within the same funder • funding from Government often responds to new ministerial priorities and the management

information they require can change at very short notice • lack of a structure to interact with the academic community which, if it existed, might help all

parties achieve a more rigorous approach to impact assessment. To address these concerns a Legacy 2013> Fund would need to remove or lower the barriers of cost, time and access to expertise. One excellent example of a working evaluation and standards of evidence model is the GLA Project Oracle, which uses a bespoke database to record and make accessible project evaluations. Project Oracle is attempting to bring evaluation of youth projects (but the lessons learned could be applied to all age groups) in line with academically rigorous and internationally recognised standards of evidence. It aims to improve the understanding of what does and does not work. As it moves forward in 2012/13 Project Oracle will encompass more projects and develop a matchmaking service between social researchers and youth projects. The Project Oracle approach and the Views software are used, but are not mandatory, as part of the evaluation process of the Mayor’s Sports Legacy Fund.

Another system which may offer insights into effective and standardised programme evaluation is the Football Foundation’s Upshot.36 Upshot is an online management system used by the Football Foundation to help manage, monitor and evidence funded projects. It aims for ease of set up and the reduction on the administrative burden on Football Foundation staff and aims to benefit to the organisations they fund. It would seem practical and desirable for a Legacy 2013> Fund to work 35 The Laureus Teenage Kicks report also calls for on funders to provide dedicated funding and other support for monitoring and evaluation and to check that there are systems in place to measure impact before making grants.

36 To find out more about Upshot visit www.upshot.org.uk,.


with the GLA and Project Oracle and discuss Upshot with The Football Foundation rather than try to establish a competing framework for monitoring and evaluation. 6.8 Podium – working with the academic community Podium37, the further and higher education unit of the London 2012 Games, could provide a point of contact for development of links with the academic sector. Through its Games Expert portal38, Podium is building an online community of experts in, amongst other things, impact assessment and measurement of the effectiveness of sports based programmes on social cohesion and well-being. It is hoped that Podium will secure funding to continue its work beyond March 2013. Another academic approach to the programme development, monitoring and impact assessment could be to adopt the Critical Realism framework as advocated by Dr Ian Richards, a recognised authority in the assessment of sports projects. If this approach were to be adopted a Legacy 2013> Fund evaluation strategy would be based on the following four questions.

WHAT WORKS? - FOR WHOM? IN WHAT CONTEXT? WHY?

As part of this feasibility study, London Youth was asked to comment on how it would see the development of an effective monitoring and evaluation strategy and Quality Assurance for any Legacy 2013> Fund. Below are the recommendations of its senior management team.39 6.9 London Youth – perspectives on impact assessment Quality assuring delivery

• Ensure community sports organisations are demonstrating quality standards. The London Youth Quality Mark ensures that clubs involved in Getting Ready for the Games and Beyond are meeting our standards of delivery and management

• Build partnership with research institutions and universities to quality assure the evidence base and compliment the expertise of front-line practitioners who almost certainly will not have research rigor as their priority.

Data capture and analysis

• Use a database package that is very simple to use and enables local organisations to input data directly (rather than collecting and entering centrally)

• Information then uploaded to central database maintained by a network organisation to do overall analysis

• Database linked to external social indicators (via Substance impact software package – or something similar) such as offending rates, school attendance, number of unemployed young people in a given area

• Overall system managed by a specialist company (as Views does for the Mayor’s Legacy Fund currently) to produce overall findings for the Legacy 2013> Fund but so that individual organisations can also produce their own reports.

37 www.podium.ac.uk 38 www.games-‐expert.com 39 For further information on London Youth’s broader approach to impact assessment see pages 50-‐55 of Hunch, their recent publication available at www.londonyouth.org.uk


7.0 INCOME GENERATION How a Legacy 2013> Fund might raise new money to invest in initiatives bringing communities together through community sport without competing for resources with other organisations working in the same field. Raising new money must be at the heart of any proposal to create a Legacy 2013> Fund. An income generation strategy must avoid competing with other organisations for scarce funding at a time of Government cutbacks and when the sponsorship market will be particularly crowded. London Funders has worked with CCLA Investment Management Ltd (which is providing its services on a pro bono basis) on a top level income generation strategy. CCLA are also currently working on detailed financial modelling for a Legacy 2013> Fund based a range of investment strategies adjusted for inflation based on both the Retail Price Index and the Consumer Price Index. The general approach to income generation is outlined below. 7.1 A challenge fund model As part of the original bid promise to the world, London 2012 agreed that 60% of any operating surplus from the Games would be committed to “grassroots sport” in the UK.40 This commitment to the IOC and the world was a key factor in the UK winning the bid. A further £370 million remains in unspent contingency from the construction of the Olympic Park as of September 2012.41 Rather than all these resources returning to the Exchequer for onward distribution through existing channels, a proportion could be committed to supplying the start-up capital for a lasting, endowed fund to support community sport. This could be established on the basis of a challenge model offering a match from Government and/or a Lottery distributor for donations received from individuals, the corporate and charities. The offer to Government and Lottery distributors would be that by working together the private, voluntary and public sectors could increase resources and create a lasting funding legacy for the type of community sport initiatives which fall outside the remit of current funding arrangements. Any request for Government and/or Lottery investment in the capital of a Legacy 2013> Fund would be for one-off investment and not part of an open ended commitment. A number of foundations have been set up in this way with an initial investment from Government, e.g. City Parochial Foundation, now known as Trust for London. Another more contemporary example is the Community First programme which is funded by the Office for Civil Society and managed by Community Development Foundation (CDF). Community First includes an endowment match challenge (EMC) element in which donations from private individuals and businesses are matched by Government. For every £2 raised, Government contributes £1. Community foundations are raising this money and hope to create £150 million endowment by 2015. The overall financial objective of the Legacy 2013> Fund should be to grow substantially any funding at present earmarked for a post-Olympics community sport legacy with the aim of creating a lasting endowed fund. A target of £200 million for the start-up capital of the Legacy 2013> Fund has been suggested, with government contributing half of this and challenging the founders to raise the rest. This aspiration should not exclude the possibility of a model which starts with far less funding and pilot projects from late 2012 to 2014 and then building organically over the years.

40 The remainder of any operating surplus is committed 20% to the British Olympic Association and 20% to the International Olympic Committee. Final accounts to determine how much, if any, operating surplus has been generated are unlikely to be available before mid-‐late2013. However, sources have indicated that an indication of the London 2012 operating surplus might be available as early as November 2012. 41 Unspent contingency is likely to revert to the lottery distributors who part funded construction of the venues, with the final destination of the funds as yet to be determined. A final figure for unspent contingency will not be available until later in 2012.


7.2 Donor involvement Soundings within the financial and funding communities indicate that any model should also take into account a certain amount of donor direction, though experienced advice cautions care in where the lower limit for donor direction of funds should to be set. Sub-funds should probably be at least £150,00 to avoid high administration costs. Other funders believe that such a limit is too high and may deter some individual donors. Major donors could be given the opportunity of directing funds within the parameters of the objects of the Legacy 2013> Fund on the basis of their own geographic, demographic, equality strand, sport or sectoral priorities. Donors’ involvement and interest should be maintained through opportunities to visit funded projects. 7.3 Bona fides and reputation The reputation and bona fides of the founding partners should assist in convincing Government that any investment it makes would be managed effectively as a permanent fund. The Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership (City Bridge Trust, Comic Relief, Community Development Foundation and Trust for London, with secretariat provided by London Funders) and the Legacy 2013> Fund Project Management Board which has managed the feasibility study is composed of:

• established grantmakers with long experience raising and managing funds in excess of £200 million per annum, and

• community organisations with experience in supporting and monitoring projects that create positive change in their communities through community sport

If a decision to establish a Legacy 2013> Fund is taken, Government and Lottery distributors would be working with established partners which in the case of the Community Development Foundation have accounts laid before Parliament and are part of the Government Framework Agreement. 7.4 LA84 Foundation – lessons for the UK? The capital for the LA84 Foundation was established with 40% of the operating profits of the Los Angeles Olympic Games, a figure which was agreed and earmarked in advance. The remaining 60% reverted to the USA Olympic Committee. The operating surplus for the 1984 Los Angeles Games was $232 million. The raw statistics for the LA84 Foundation are as follows:

• $93 million start-up capital • $200 million in grants made since 1985 • LA84 Foundation has sufficient reserves to guarantee long-term continuity • return on investment has averaged 8% per annum • overheads are kept to a minimum – maximum of 5% of turnover.

The LA84 Foundation has maintained its operation thanks to an astute investment strategy and has not, until recently, needed to seek either corporate sponsorship or donations. It has only recently started to approach corporate Mission Partners for investment to boost capital programmes. The current economic context means that any foundation established now needs to assume less favourable conditions. The 2012 Games have also involved increased security costs which are bound to have an adverse effect on the 2012 balance sheet, making the kind of surplus left by LA84 unlikely, if not impossible. The organisations involved in the Legacy 2013> Fund have assumed that this means the primary difference between the LA84 Foundation and anything created following London 2012, is the need for a commitment to match any Government contribution with private and corporate donations. 7.5 Corporate sponsorship As indicated earlier in this report, the sponsorship market will become increasingly crowded as a number of high profile sports organisations seek the support of London 2012 sponsors and IOC global partners for their work. London 2012 sponsors such as EDF and BT and global Olympic partners such as Visa and Samsung will be key targets. Added to those will be brands working in the area of elite and community sport such as Siemens (rowing) Aviva (athletics) and British Gas/ Centrica (swimming) which are not official sponsors of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic


Games. Central to the Legacy 2013> Fund proposition is the commitment to bring new money to the table. It should not therefore simply confuse the present sponsorship and community sport market and compete with existing organisations doing valuable work. This guiding principle may lead to a sponsorship strategy which concentrates on:

• unlocking donations from individual philanthropists, and • looking beyond consumer/retail brands to global financial institutions and UK-based B2B

brands not previously approached to support community development through sport Despite the complications and possible conflicts, a Legacy 2013> Fund should commission a comprehensive sponsorship strategy which would form a part of the overall brand strategy. Any brand strategy would also need to take into account the likelihood that sponsors and major donors would seek visibility and recognition for their brand. The brand and sponsorship strategies must therefore be closely linked in any organisation seeking to raise substantial income through sponsorship. For an approach to brand development refer to section 8.1 of this report. The brand and logo of the Legacy 2013> Fund should be developed with the need for income generation in mind. Sponsors and high value donors are unlikely to invest in and associate with a brand and logo unless it communicates a positive vision. It needs to be more than the name of a committee or branch of fund governance. Sponsorship is now less likely to be awarded on the basis of the personal interests of the company CEO as was sometimes the case in the 1990s. The decision to sponsor a charitable initiative normally forms part of an integrated marketing and communications strategy designed to enhance the brand of the sponsoring company with the mid- to long-term aim of increasing brand equity and sales. Consumer brands expect to form a partnership with a charitable initiative whose brand values align with their own and whose objectives appeal to their core customer base. Altruism may be part of the decision-making process but sponsorship is a business investment, not a charitable donation. The reasons that companies sponsor not-for-profit initiatives include:

• increase brand loyalty amongst individuals and communities • enhance brand visibility (e.g. Barclays sponsorship of “Boris bikes” in London) • promote positive word of mouth/word of mouse support for their brand42 • encourage brand re-appraisal from consumers, a reason particularly prominent where a

brand or sector has suffered negative media coverage • support participation in a charitable/sporting event as a brand experience/sampling

opportunity where large numbers of individuals take part in an activity43 7.6 Corporate social responsibility Decisions by companies to support a charitable project which aims to add social value as part of its corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes are linked to, but distinct from, the reasons they invest some of their marketing spend in sponsorship. Sponsorship should normally result in increased sales at some point in the business cycle, whilst CSR may not. Investment in the Legacy 2013>Fund from CSR budgets would be made on the basis of alignment between the stated CSR objectives of the sponsoring company and those of the Legacy 2013> Fund. Consultation has demonstrated that the strongest common link with the CSR strategies of major companies which might consider supporting Legacy 2013> Fund is the concept of community sport – building communities. This proposition would be more about helping build the next generation of good citizens than the next generation of elite sportsmen and sportswomen.

42 Consumers are on average 5 times more likely to buy a product or service if a friend or colleague recommends it compared to the effect of advertising. 1 in 3 brand sales are acquired through advocacy. 50 per cent of advocacy results in sales [Source Weber Shandwick December 2009] 43 Many marketers believe that consumers are more likely to form an emotional attachment with a brand or product if they are introduced to it at a time they are involved in enjoyable leisure activities such as a community sports event.


The line between CSR investment designed to enhance a brand’s reputation as a good corporate citizen and a marketing strategy designed to increase sales is becoming increasingly blurred. In a recent Populus poll44 of 2,000 adults 71% agreed with the statement:

“I would feel more positively towards a brand/company/business if they knew it was having a positive impact on the communities in which the events they sponsor took place”.

Positive association is often the first step in the process of making a sale and establishing long-term brand loyalty. This fact has not been missed by social-marketeers45 who will aim to build loyalty to their brand(s) by linking them to causes which their customers or potential customers feel passionate about.46 They will aim to do good but critically also aim to increase shareholder value and equity in their brand. This raises the challenge that if a Legacy 2013>Fund is to seek investment from sponsors it will need to create a mechanism that allows beneficiaries of the Fund and their peer groups to be made aware of and recognise the contribution being made by the sponsor /CSR partner. 7.7 Sponsorship - insights from a global brand The changing face of sponsorship and why global brands are becoming involved in campaigns which aim to create social value was recently articulated by Jon Woods, General Manager, Coca-Cola, Great Britain and Ireland:

“Traditionally, many sponsors view partnering with high profile events as a chance to raise the profile and visibility of their brand and nothing more. But today simply badging an event is regarded as superficial and inadequate and the general public expect much more.” 47

Jon Woods”48 identified the following factors as important starting points, which could apply to a number of brands, not just Coca-Cola.

• the sponsorship concept must fit with the strategic business plan of the sponsoring company • a strong fit with the brand values of both parties • long-term sustainability of the concept/campaign • serious sponsors do not look for short-term projects and quick fixes • environmental sustainability is an important factor • engagement and involvement between both parties is important, e.g. the inspirational and

motivational effect of visiting StreetGames projects for Coca-Cola staff • involvement in a conversation, e.g. Coca-Cola cannot avoid discussion of teenagers’ diet so

it is better to engage with the debate and offer activity and possible solutions. 7.8 Media partnerships and public appeals A leading national radio group has approached London Funders with an interest in possible support for any future Legacy 2013> Fund. Ideally a media partnership should be multi-platform and include print, radio, digital and TV. Media Trust is a member of the Legacy 2013> Fund Project Management Group and is well placed to offer advice and leadership on this. Properly managed, a media partnership could:

• raise awareness of the work of a Legacy 2013> Fund • publicise the work of successful funded projects • facilitate fundraising or head up an annual appeal

The standard arrangement in media partnerships is a value-in-kind deal where airtime or advertorial 44 Populus, March 2012. Quotation from Measuring Up – the social value of sponsorship, Max Wind-‐Cowie, Claudia Wood, Demos April 2012. All rights reserved. 46 This argument first came to prominence in the Good Business-‐ Your World Needs You. Steve Hilton and Giles Gibbons 2002. Steve Hilton was Prime Minister, David Cameron’s Director of Strategy May 2010 to March 2012. 47 Quote from Measuring Up – the social value of sponsorship, Max Wind-‐Cowie, Claudia Wood, Demos April 2012. All rights reserved 48 Demos launch of Measuring Up, South Bank Centre, 19 April 2012,


space is offered in return for exclusive marketing rights within the media category and branding on marketing and communications collateral of the partner’s campaign. In this way a media partnership can be a valuable source of budget substitution, particularly in offsetting marketing and communications costs. Key issues to be considered when negotiating a media partnership are:

• a media partner might push for title rather than headline sponsorship49 rights in return for support

• such an agreement could restrict coverage in other media outlets • a Legacy 2013> Fund will not have succeeded if all it does is divert any funds and attention

from other successful appeals such as Sport Relief (part of Comic Relief). Sport Relief will be included in any discussion to ensure that the Legacy 2013> Fund is not in any way distracting from its important campaigns. 7.9 Philanthropy and high net worth donors CCLA Investment Management and London Community Foundation are members of the Legacy Fund 2013> Project Management Board with experience in this area. The project needs to strengthen its contacts with the banking industry, particularly in relation to wealth management. London Funders is in contact with Philanthropy UK and, in the event of the project progressing, would develop a strategy to involve philanthropists and attract the interest of high net worth individuals. 7.10 Foundations The Fund should explore the scope for involving foundations interested in contributing to the start-up capital of a Legacy 2013>Fund through a transfer of capital or, more likely, through a grant or by outsourcing some of their own community sport grantmaking to the Fund. 7.11 Legacy 2013> Fund offer The Legacy 2013> Fund model as it stands offers potential supporters and investors a number of advantages:

• a lasting London 2012 funding legacy provided by the creation of an independent, endowed fund to improve well-being and simplify funding for community sport

• the option of a connection between the donor, be it an individual, corporation or public body and the outcome of their funding

• a measure of donor direction and involvement with community sport organisations for corporate donors (e.g. employee engagement) if required

• a way of using the “Olympic windfall” of goodwill and increased revenue to build on existing resources and raise new money

• transparency • standardised impact measurement and quality standards (e.g. using Project Oracle,

Substance Views software and/or London Youth quality standards) • cost efficiency delivered via organisations with a track record and stability • satisfaction for individuals, corporates and other organisations of participation in a fund

which is creating positive change, supporting disadvantaged communities and improving lives through community sport

• continued and increased impact of their charitable investment.

49 A headline sponsorship agreement would read “Legacy 2013> Fund -‐ Sponsored by Acme Media. Title sponsorship would read “The Acme Media Legacy 2013> Fund”.

Legacy 2013> Non Statutory Fund Income Generation and Sponsorship Model Version 1

CORPORATE DONORS

Investment Rationale Vision, mission and values of the Fund need to align where possible with a critical mass of potential investors/sponsors Corporates Do Well Do Good – Good Corporate Citizenship. Put your brand at the heart of communities as part of your long term social marketing/brand building strategy Delegate and outsource administration of what would be aco-branded grassroots sport programme.

Philanthropists

See effects of your giving multiplied and help to create positive change in communities through grassroots sport and active living. Large donors can

gain recognition and have

some measure of direction

Charitable trusts

Increase the impact of your funding of

grassroots sport via a challenge

fund model

and build a historic legacy of the Games

Sponsorship income From marketing budgets of consumer and service brands that want to build brand loyalty or invite brandre-appraisal

CHARITABLE TRUSTS

INDIVIDUAL GIVING – PUBLIC APPEAL

PHILANTHROPY

Corporate social responsibility Aimed at companies that wish to strengthen communities through grassroots sport and active living

High net worth individuals Specialist area. Banking / finance partner needed

Bequests Only possible if Legacy 2013> Fund is seen as a very long term propos ition

Friends scheme Invitation for donors to set up direct debit to support the work of the Fund. e.g Friends of Golden Gate Park model

Larger trusts Invited to invest in the Legacy 2013> Fund matched by Government to increase the impact of Olympic legacy

Headline and media sponsorship Headline sponsor Investment sought for long term deal with brand recognition Media partner Brand recognition in return for value in kind sponsorship to promote the Fund

Small trusts Invitation to run part of their grassroots sport grant making through the Fund

Livery companies Best approached together, perhaps by the City Corporation?

M&S children’s Promise has been cited as a possible model. However, we should not compete with existing campaigns eg Sport Relief

Figure 2: Draft non-statutory income generation and sponsorship model


8.0 BRAND STRATEGY, VISION AND MISSION How a Legacy 2013> Fund might establish a brand and articulate its vision and mission in a crowded and confused marketplace. Brand in this context is not simply a name and logo.50 The present use of the name Legacy 2013> Fund is a working title, used to establish initial common terms of reference. Brand is the personality that identifies a product, service or company and how it relates to key constituencies or stakeholders: customers, staff, partners, and investors. Any modern definition usually includes the idea that a successful brand must make and keep a promise that distinguishes its product, concept or service from its competitors or similar products in the marketplace. Branding is often associated with consumer goods or services but it is increasingly a central factor in campaigns, for example Breast Cancer Awareness. In this sense any brand created for the Legacy 2013> Fund would be a concept brand.51 8.1 Branding the fund Initial soundings have indicated that voluntary organisations are confused by the number of initiatives and programmes which have included the words “Olympic Legacy”. This context makes branding even more crucial to the prospective success of the Legacy 2013> Fund. Any brand architecture would need to:

• differentiate itself in a crowded and confused marketplace • articulate what the Fund is promising to do or its brand promise which should be closely

allied to its vision and mission • have a clear set of brand values laying out what the Fund will stand for • be clear about what association, if any, it is claiming with the spirit or legacy of the London

2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games • allow for a dialogue and connection between donors, sponsors or investors and the

beneficiaries of the fund

All these issues will still be important even though according to present thinking the Fund will not be a direct grantmaker to community organisations, but rather operate through funding existing experienced grantmakers to do so. The need for brand clarity is important because partners and stakeholders will need to know:

• what they are investing in • the difference that a Legacy 2013> Fund is promising to make • how their contribution will be recognised • the strategic fit between the brand of the Legacy 2013> Fund and their brand • how the work of the Legacy 2013> Fund will be seen and heard in a crowded and noisy

marketplace Being able to answer these questions is not simply a matter of good practice. It can assist in income generation. Commodity brands normally only invest in other organisations or brands which share their brand values. Any brand architecture and hierarchy will also have to demonstrate that recognition can be given to the Legacy 2013> Fund (or its successor) when a grant is made (even though another organisation is writing the cheque) and that the support of investors, sponsors or commercial sponsors can also be recognised. Some investors may wish to remain anonymous but the brand and communications strategy needs to allow for public recognition across all marketing and communications channels for sponsors and investors. 50 The American Marketing Association defines a brand as "a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” Brand could also been defined more extensively as; “a collection of ideas and images representing an economic producer referring to the descriptive verbal attributes and concrete symbols such as name, logo, slogan and design scheme that conveys the essence of a company, product service or concept” 51 Breast Cancer UK and the NSPCC Full Stop campaign are examples of concept brands operating in the charity sector.


The Legacy Fund 2013> Fund Partnership is unlikely to have enough resources to contract the services of brand and marketing agency unless this can be secured on a pro bono basis. One way to resolve this would be to organise a competition to create a brand. This might be achieved by discussion with a London university or Podium, the further and higher education unit of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. 8.2 Respecting the London 2012 and Olympic brands The marketing rights (including any implied association with the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games) of London 2012 will transfer from LOCOG to the British Olympic Association (BOA) in the spring of 2013.52 The issue of association with London 2012 is not simply about the use of logos and restricted words. The Fund could only claim for example that it was “inspired by the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games” with the agreement of the BOA. A continued strong working relationship with the BOA and the British Olympic Trust and their consent for any association is essential. The Olympic brand is protected by law. The Fund could make no association with the Olympic Movement but it might with proper consent be able to make an association with The Spirit of London 2012.

8.3 Vision Potential partners, including the British Olympic Foundation, have indicated that the Legacy 2013> Fund needs to establish a clear vision and mission at an early stage if it is to gain support. The vision statement needs to articulate the change that the Legacy 2013> Fund aspires to make as a result of its work with partners. By definition, any vision statement is an idealised, aspirational long-term view. It should state clearly the desired outcome of the Fund’s work. Vision statements are often intentionally emotive and inspirational. For example the vision of Comic Relief is "A just world free from poverty”. The following is suggested as a draft vision and a basis for discussion:

A healthier, happier and more cohesive Britain The vision could then be developed as strap line or brand promise as follows:

Supporting organisations using sport to create real change in their communities.

8.4 Mission The mission statement defines the fundamental purpose of an organisation, succinctly describing why it exists and what it does to achieve its vision. It is here that the Legacy 2013>Fund must define what it is doing differently and how it is adding value. The following wording is suggested as a draft mission statement as a basis for discussion:

To increase the available resources for organisations changing lives through community sport by establishing a lasting, independent, endowed fund which would improve social, community and physical well-being as a legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

If the Legacy 2013> Fund is established, the finalising of vision and mission statements would need to form part of a wider branding exercise. 8.5 Aims and objectives The aims and objectives should articulate in more detail how the Fund will achieve its mission and vision and when finalised should answer the questions:

• what do we do? • how do we do it? • who are we doing it for?

52 Legacy 2013> Fund Project Manager Paul Bower and London Funders Director Gaynor Humphreys have already met the CEO of the British Olympic Foundation who is also Director of Olympic Relations at the BOA and established a co-‐operative dialogue.


The following aims and objectives have been developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders including the Legacy 2013> Fund Project Management Board and the Sport Unit of the Greater London Authority:

• establish and maintain a lasting, independent, endowed fund to support the work of organisations changing lives and making positive change in their communities through sport

• inspire individuals, corporations and other organisations to invest in community sport where it helps to build communities

• increase, and help simplify, the funding available for community sport, bridging the gap identified for increased core and revenue funding

• grow available discretionary, statutory and Lottery funding at present earmarked for community sport as part of the legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games through investment and matched funding

• use existing expertise to target resources to communities which do not have access to other sources of funding for community sport

• support successful grantmakers to make an impact on community development through participation in sport

• support organisations that recognise the breadth of value of community sport in people’s lives in terms of social cohesion and improved well-being

• maintain and refresh grantmaking that is relevant and responsive to the needs of customers and stakeholders

• establish and maintain a cost effective charitable foundation to oversee the delivery of these aims and objectives that would then contract out administration, grantmaking and fund development to one or more experienced organisations.

8.6 Customers and beneficiaries The Legacy> 2013 Fund will have one principal client group, organisations that are changing people’s lives and creating positive change in their communities through. A fundamental principle of the Fund is that it is set up to support activities and organisations that have no, or restricted, access to other sources of funding. The beneficiaries of the Fund should be communities which are the subject of some form of social disadvantage or exclusion.


9.0 FUND GOVERNANCE The options for structure and governance based on the principle that it has always been the intention to contract out fund management and grantmaking. Hunters Solicitors of Lincolns Inn have offered pro bono support to the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership and are acting as legal advisers on initial issues relating to governance and structure. 9.1 Interim arrangements 2012-13 The Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership will establish interim governance arrangements to manage its joint affairs as the partners explore further the options for of establishing the Fund, raising capital and entering into discussions with government and others. The interim structures under consideration, which would lead to establishing long lasting structures, are:

• a consortium vehicle established with Heads of Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding where all members of the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership acquire equal representation on the Board of Trustees

• a registered charity As of September 2012 Hunters Solicitors are initially undertaking work on a pro bono basis for the Legacy 2013> Fund on governance structure and the appropriate legal vehicle to meet its charitable objects. London Funders could establish and administer the interim legal structure and vehicle for the Legacy 2013 Fund and appointment of a Board of Trustees in the early stages. However, London Funders does not expect to manage the Fund. 9.2 Establishing a more permanent legal structure The Legacy 2013> Fund will essentially be a charitable organisation which could take the form of either

• A discretionary trust; or • A company limited by guarantee.

The proposed legal structure adopted will be influenced mainly by the proposed activities of the Legacy 2013 Fund and its charitable objects. Two issues to be considered are:

• whether the Legacy 2013> Fund will restrict its activities to being a “wholesale” grantmaker working through direct grantmakers that fund community development through community sport, or

• whether it should provide for more complex activities, e.g. to include the provision of equipment and services, such as advice and business support to community beneficiaries

9.3 Deed of trust – in perpetuity or lasting At the heart of the Legacy 2013> Fund proposal is a desire to create a fund that benefits future generations. However, Lottery distributors are barred from investing in endowed funds set up “in perpetuity”. Governments of all persuasions often have a short to medium term perspective based on the political cycle. They are understandable reluctant to invest in projects and programmes with no clear end date. It is an intention for many potential donors, however, that endowment is lasting and therefore the Fund should be based on a trust deed which is explicit about endowment, while allowing flexibility for future decisions-making to be based on then context and needs within the charitable objects, which would be something like:

“to strengthen communities through the funding and promotion of community sport”. Some argue that it may be appropriate to plan for “spend out” in the long term, though it should be noted that the LA84 Foundation had this provision and has decided to reject it. What is important is:

• the need for a robust system to appoint trustees, not to represent their own interests , or those of the founder(s) or donors, but of the beneficiaries of the Trust, and

• the need to consider the mechanism for refreshing the board of trustees so that it can reflect


changed times and circumstances, and • consideration of term limits for trustees and the chair of trustees

9.4 Responsibilities of the board of trustees In the event of the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership successfully raising the start-up capital, membership would be strengthened and enlarged to help meet the challenges of a fully operational project. An initial skills audit has established the need for strengths in the following two areas: fund development and financial management. Additional expertise could be included in the form of subgroups advising the trustees on key issues such as finance, community development, communications and marketing, policy and young people. The board would need to establish robust and transparent processes and a legal structure for

• appointing a selection panel to interview candidates to manage the Legacy 2013> Fund and make recommendations

• selecting the organisation(s) that will manage it and be accountable for grantmaking, fundraising, monitoring and due diligence

• overseeing the establishment of the Fund • initial income generation in the form of pledges • identifying partnership funding • negotiating detailed terms of reference between the Fund’s temporary organisations and any

new charitable trust. 9.5 Appointing fund managers Members of the existing Legacy 2013> Partnership Management Board and supporters could opt to continue their involvement. However, full provision for the avoidance of conflict of interest must be built into any organisational structure. Organisations or individuals wishing to bid to manage or benefit from the Fund should not take part in the decision to appoint the fund managers or grants management. Membership of the Legacy 2013> Fund Partnership or the Project Management Board does not in any way imply that an organisation will either be involved in running or will benefit from a Legacy 2013> Fund. Organisations wishing to bid to manage or benefit from the Fund cannot take part in the decision to appoint the fund management or investment. All support has been given freely on a pro bono basis. London Funders is conducting the feasibility study on a costs only basis – and has contributed a lot of management time to the project. Full provision for the avoidance of conflict of interest must be built into organisational structures. The only initial assumptions that have been made in relation to this decision and any qualifying criteria are that fund and grants management would need to be managed by an experienced funding body which also has the resources and business continuity planning in place to raise and manage funds over a very long period.

Legacy 2013 > Fund – Funding and Governance Model – Option 1

LEGACY 2013> FUND • Restricted and unrestricted funding pots • Matching existing funding for grassroots sport and active living • Raising new money via corporate giving and philanthropy • Set up as a charitable foundation with overall legal responsibility

and accountability • Sets strategic priorities • Board of Trustees comprises senior figures from stakeholders

chaired by a high profile figure • Contracts out grantmaking to experienced body

• ation retains ownership of brand and concept

•

Discretionary statutory funding for grassroots sport

Investment manager

Experienced fund managercontracted by Legacy 2013>Fund to maximise investment within an ethical framework

Grants management • Awarded contract by competitive tender by Legacy 2013> Fund for

a specific period • Experienced dynamic organisation • Strong track record in grantmaking

Organisations creating positive change in their communities and improving wellbeing through grassroots sport and active living. Outcomes measured by one set of quality standards impact assessment and reporting e.g Oracle, LY Quality Mark, Substance/Views software

Non-statutory income streams

Philanthropy High net worth individuals Bequests Friends scheme

Corporate

CSR

Sponsorship

Trusts

Other trusts investing based on

key priorities (eg geographic demographic) or unrestricted Public appeal Working with a multi -platform media partner

Grants channelled through Grantmakers with a track record of cost effective distribution of funds to grassroots organisations working in grassroots sport and active living

Charitable found

LOCOG operating surplus?ODA unspent contingency?Olympic Lottery Distributor?

Big Lottery Fund?Small percentage of revenue from

Olympic park asset sales?

Millennium Commission post 2001work may offer a model

Figure 3: Draft funding and governance model


10. Conclusion

The Legacy 2013> Fund concept was tested with a broad range of people and organisations at a business breakfast on 23 July 2012, which included a keynote speech by Anita DeFrantz, President of LA84 Foundation and member of the IOC. Participants from community sports organisations, local government, corporates, media organisations and funders confirmed the need for a new Fund and were enthusiastic in support. Partners must act quickly to take advantage of the momentum and goodwill generated by the Games while this is still current.

The success of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and the enthusiasm for sport that they generated could be the catalyst for a community legacy lasting for generations. The Legacy 2013> Fund concept could become a reality as critical mass of funders and donors join together to make a clear offer to raise a substantial amount of money, which could be matched by government and/or Lottery distributor contributions earmarked for a community sports legacy. If government and Lottery distributors were to work with the Legacy 2013> Fund Partners and their growing range of supporters, they would be harnessing 1,000 years’ experience in helping transform communities and managing substantial resources. Such a partnership could create an ideal combination of new money and proven expertise.

The LA84 Foundation started with part of the operating surplus of the Los Angeles Games. A Legacy 2013> Fund established for the whole of the UK already has the backing of organisations that can demonstrate to government and Lottery distributors their track record, between them, in fundraising, fund management and grantmaking - adding value and raising new money. If match funding from Government were available a growing number of partners from the private, public and charity sectors would rise to the challenge.

Support for the Legacy 2013> Fund concept has grown during and since the successful Olympic and Paralympic Games and is linked to a desire to keep the spirit of London 2012 alive. Demand comes not just from community sports organisations that might benefit from an independent, lasting endowed fund. It is also coming from the corporate sector and at least one London 2012 Tier 1 sponsor which sees the attraction of a concept brand and financial vehicle to take forward a vision of the transformative and educational value of sport for individuals and communities.

Consumer brands may look to invest in communities through the financing of sport programmes following on from the Games as part of their CSR strategy as good corporate citizens or as part of a wider commercial strategy to build brand loyalty. For them, the Legacy 2013> Fund could provide clarity and visibility in an otherwise fragmented landscape. No similar vehicle exists and without it, the potential of a lasting, positive legacy of the Games could be dissipated.

The Partners believe that the cost to government of supporting the Fund is less than not supporting it. They have begun to set out this economic case that investment in community sport can, even in the medium term, save the Treasury more than it costs. To build this case further, the Partners would plan to work with Laureus Sport for Good and New Philanthropy Capital which have already undertaken ground-breaking work with the Teenage Kicks report.

At the heart of the findings of the feasibility study is the contention that this Fund could only achieve its full potential for transformative change through community sport if government were to set aside a proportion of any operating surplus or unspent contingency from the Games to create the start-up capital of the Fund and challenge other donors to contribute. The Legacy 2013> Partnership may be advised to start the process of securing pledges from foundations, corporates, and high net worth individuals to demonstrate that if government takes the bold and imaginative step of setting aside part of the Olympic operating surplus this could be matched by donations which otherwise would not be forthcoming to support community sport.

The potential prize on offer is a Fund and a powerful idea that could enrich the lives of people who were not even born in 2012.


Appendix 1

The economic impact of investing in community sport

The business case

During a recession it is even more difficult to argue for more funding for community sport. There is a strong business as well as moral case to do so. All the available evidence demonstrates that timely investment in community sport projects can save taxpayers’ money as well as enrich young lives.

The case for funding community sport activities which build self-esteem amongst young people as part of a wider crime and anti-social behaviour prevention strategy is persuasive. Youth crime costs the UK an estimated £4 billion per year53 with over 75,00054 new entrants into the youth justice system every year. Hard evidence on the causal effect of grassroots sport programmes on youth crime and re-offending is difficult to establish due to a lack of data from providers, but also because of the closed nature of many government data sources. Research undertaken by the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation and New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) indicates a proven positive link between interventions using sport and crime reduction, improved educational performance and quantifiable savings for the Exchequer. 55

The Kickz programme funded by The Premier League and the Metropolitan Police uses football to work with young people living in deprived areas who are at risk of offending. Arsenal FC is a key supporter and the programme has achieved positive results in London. According to research conducted by NPC, the Kickz programme at Elthorne Park in Islington achieved the following results:

o for every £1 invested in the programme there was evidence of a £7 saving for the Exchequer and the local community.

o 66% reduction in youth crime56 between May 2006 – August 2009 in the Elthorne Park area o reductions in crime, particularly vandalism, were noted on days where there was no Kickz

activity as well as days when the programme was running o evidence suggests that the effect was not just temporal or geographical displacement of

criminal and anti-social activity but that the Kickz programme also had a long term impact on behaviour

The NPC/Laureus research also looked at the Boxing Academy in Tottenham, a sports based alternative to a Pupil Referral Unit. The NPC/ Laureus research found the following:

o the project cost approximately half as much to set up and run as a traditional pupil referral unit

o 6% of Boxing Academy graduates went on to study at a Higher education level compared to a 4% average at traditional pupil referral units.

o 22% went to achieve at least one ‘A’ Level compared with an average of 13% at traditional pupil referral units.

o for every £1 invested in the programme £3 was saved in other social costs It should be noted that despite being located at the epicentre of the riots and looting which took place in the summer of 2011 not a single student attending the Boxing Academy was involved in the criminal activity over four days of civil disorder.

53 Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-‐Social Behaviour, Time for a Fresh Start, 2010 54 As of December 2009 ref Department of Children, Schools and Family 55 Teenage Kicks – the Value of Sport in Tackling Youth Crime, Laureus Sport for Good Foundation/New Philanthropy Capital 2010, www.laureus.com 56 A reduction from 2,529 to 867 in reported crimes during that period.


The transformational power of community sport and its cost effectiveness are further demonstrated in research in the East Midlands. The 2nd Chance Young Offenders Institute in Ashfield offers sports coaching, mentoring and the possibility of sports qualifications on release. Over 450 young people have been involved in the 2nd Chance programme. If the programme prevents just five young people from re-offending and going through the youth justice system it will have achieved a 4:1 positive ratio from the original £87,000 investment. If the programme prevents just one young person from re-offending and being given a one year term in a young offenders’ institution it will have paid back all the initial investment. 57

The NPC/Laureus research and feedback from consultations has also emphasised the importance of mentoring and group support as well as sports coaching if a programmes is to effect positive change. In all of the above programmes staff were trained youth workers as well as sports coaches.

57 Locking Up or Giving Up, Barnardos 2009, puts the annual per person cost of holding someone in a young offenders institution at £60,000. The Foyer Federation puts the cost at £100,000.


Appendix 2

Mayor’s Sport Legacy Fund – Initial findings of in-house evaluation

A full audit of the programme will be undertaken later in 2012. An internal evaluation has indicated the following:

• a three stage process - application form, sift and then (for applicants that progressed to the next stage) a face-to-face interview – was felt to work well. This process often revealed those organisations that had employed a freelance consultant to write their bid but could not always articulate their case for themselves. Conversely, the final face-to-face stage also gave organisations that had not been able to employ outside help the opportunity to state their case

• enhanced monitoring including face-to-face meetings with successfully funded organisations worked well. Far from feeling that they were being micro-managed, funded organisations appreciated the input and guidance of the GLA Sports Unit

• a focus on supporting more disabled people to get active was well received and effective58 • there were peaks and troughs in the workload and what one officer described as problems

“getting the money out of the door”. Demand was always high and all rounds were over-subscribed. The issue arose because the GLA paid grants quarterly in arrears and projects were often slow to provide evidence in the form of a finance ledger printout to show that they had spent the grant and a valid invoice to claim the next grant instalment

• The lack of an online application form for grants was a negative factor.

58 Independent research commissioned by Interactive – Disability Equality on Sport indicated that once disabled people are given the opportunity and support to get active they are less likely to lapse back into inactivity

Date post:	23-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

2013> - London Funders€¦ · funding for many grassroots sport organisations in London.” Local...

Documents